City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. It is July 7th. It's 2026. It is 6 p.m. And time to call to order this meeting of the Gallatin City Council. We began each of our meetings with the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. I'd invite you to stand with me as Councilman Alexander offers our invocation and Councilman Jones leads us in the pledge.

Thank you, Father, for how good you are to us. Thank you, Lord, that we have the freedoms that we have to live in this greatest nation on the earth. And for the celebrations that we had this past weekend, God, we truly thank you for making those possible. We ask tonight your presence in this place. We ask, Lord, that your spirit would guide us and that everything we say and do would be pleasing in your eyes. We ask it all in the strong name of Jesus. Amen. Amen.

of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Ms. Kitchell, if you would please call the roll for us tonight. Vice Mayor Hayes. Present. Councilman Alexander.

Present.

Councilman Carter. Present. Councilman Fann.

Here.

Councilman Fennell.

Present.

Councilman Jones and Councilman Duvance. Mayor, we have a quorum.

Thank you, and thank you, everyone, for being here this evening. You have the minutes before you tonight from the June 16, 2026 Council meeting. Vice Mayor Hayes makes a motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by Councilman Alexander, I would ask if there are any deletions, corrections, or additions requested. Seeing none, all in favor of approving the minutes, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, say no. Minutes are unanimously approved. We are now moving to public recognition on agenda-related items. There's also time at the end of the meeting for public comment on items that are not on the evening's agenda. At both times, you'll have five minutes to speak. We ask that you come to the podium in the middle of the and we need you to give us your name and your address for the record, please. With that, public recognition on agenda-related items is open, and I welcome you forward.

Good evening, Mayor Brown, City Council, and staff. My name is Vicki Hendricks.

Ms. Hendricks, bring your mic down soon.

I'm scared I'll tear it from off.

You're little.

Tonight we are here again with what I will call the AAA, annexing, approving, and adding more. Week after week, I watch, and it's the same thing. It appears like the downfall or destruction of Gallatin. in my home. I look on the agenda each week and it just seems like it never stops. I truly hope you take seriously the moratorium, not just to look at but act. My biggest reason for attending tonight is to beg you to please take the cotton out of your ears and listen to the residents of Gallatin. The next reason, yesterday I took my mother, who is very ill, to the doctor at Vanderbilt. We returned home and she got into her recliner to rest. At 2.50 yesterday afternoon, there was a blast at the banks of Lot 4 that shook our entire house, and she started screaming, and I thought she'd had a heart attack because she has a pacemaker and she's just not well anyway. That's the worst I'd ever felt, and it's been going on for months. My neighbor called to check on us, and he said, did you feel that? And I said, yeah, I think they felt that in Portland. He said his girls were both napping, woke up screaming and scared, one's two and one's seven. He left California to escape all this. He texted me later and said, Vicki, I'm living in a war zone. It's so loud out here all the time. I've got damage to my walls and my ceiling. I've contacted Tony Butler at our farm. and asked him to go take a look around to see if any damage was done. He had talked to his wife and she said it scared her so bad that it shook the whole house. It felt like lightning had hit or a bomb had hit. I went out to the banks of Block 4 and I was so angry I was ready to just step out in front of every truck to keep them from moving or doing anything. Um, anyway, my, my Tony went out on the farm. He took two videos and one of them is right over the fence and it just looks like a sea of rock. And, um, and then there's an old rock fence that was just totally destroyed. Um, I got in my car and I drove, um, around thinking what I'm going to do. And so I ended up calling the mayor's office. I ended up calling, um, senator hale uh... william lambert fire marshal state of tennessee and i went to john pierre's office because i thought maybe you'll know what we can do i just know something's got to be done people are selling out especially out where i am they're disgusted disgusted but no one feels they are heard if they show up here you say it's out of your hands when we complain about things and say it's all on the developer now but you are a representing body I'd rather you do something and it be wrong than absolutely nothing, because that's not right. I know I'm a broken record. I spoke week after week for a couple years about the growth, the terrible roads, the traffic, and now I can't stand the blasting. I'm asking you to please listen to the residents of Gallatin you claim to care about. They cared enough about you to vote for you and put you in this position. Don't keep failing us, please.

Thank you. My name is Bruce Kittrell. I live at 1016 Durham Drive in Galvin. I'm here tonight to talk about a couple of things that have been bothering me for a long time. This moratorium, in my opinion, if you put a moratorium on apartments, I think that's the main objection. Any type of moratorium is going to send a signal to industry all across this country it's going to send a signal to single family home builders it's going to send a signal to the citizens that gallatin is folding up that they don't they don't want anymore i understand about the traffic i understand about the construction problems but What y'all need to do is get in the car and drive to, I can name four cities, Lebanon, Franklin, Merseburg, and Clarksville. It will make Gallatin look like Cottontown, the way that it has grown. It's the city's responsibility to provide the services, the roads, and it takes a while to get caught up with the building. But As far as the apartments, y'all are about three years behind schedule because the apartments are already built. They're already overbuilt. These people that, and I do not know one person that owns apartments. I don't own an apartment. I don't know anybody that owns an apartment. They cannot, they're having to give away six months of rent to get people in these apartments. They are overbuilt. But my point is, to me, we live in a democracy. We live in a free market society. We live in a supply and demand. At one time, we had a demand, so they supplied it. And I believe in capitalism. If somebody wants to spend $60 million to put in apartments and they can do it, go build them. And I know we have zoning and we have codes. But if you start this moratorium business, who's to say next week you won't come up and say, we've got a moratorium on single-family houses. We've got a moratorium on industry houses. Everybody in this state of Tennessee is begging for industry. This gal right there, that's what she does every day is try to recruit industry in here. The people have got to have a place to live. And I grew up at 512 West Main Street. You could throw football from right here where I'm standing down there where I was born 72 years ago. We have been blessed with... councilmen and mayors that care about this city. And I'm worried today about the direction this city is going. We've had doctors, we've had lawyers, we've had judges that have sat up there and mayors that they care about this city. I love this city. I don't know anything about Chicago. I don't know anything about California. I don't know anything about France. I know about Gallatin, and that's what I'm concerned about. We've got councilmen that are suing other councilmen. In 72 and a half years, I've never heard of it. Maybe it's happened before. We've got councilmen that are suing the mayor because he doesn't get his way about something. And I think the judge has left them all out of court, throwing the paper up and throwing it out. And then if that doesn't work, we've got a councilman that calls Channel 2, Channel 4, Channel 5, and Channel 17. What do they do? They get in those trucks and they run up here and interview him out here on the lawn about something because he didn't get his way. You know, I'm getting tired of it. I think the people of Gallatin are tired of it. It's time to, for y'all, as a council, to come together and get this thing back on track. Your time, sir. My time's up? Surely not. I want to brag on to department heads, and I think they care about it. We've got the best department heads and employees in the state of Tennessee. Thanks for your time.

Good evening, Mayor Brown. Good evening, City Council. I'm here to talk about agenda item number 13, which is the apartment moratorium. I think it's multifamily moratorium, and I think it's interesting the former Speaker said that the apartments are already overbuilt. I agree. You have approved too many apartments already. I would like to read again the same list of apartments that I read on March 3rd of 2026. I read to you the apartments that are already approved. They're in the pipeline. They're under construction or already approved. Vintage Baker's Crossing, which is on Tulip Poplar Drive, 252 apartments. Caldwell Place, which is behind the townhomes that are not yet built next to the Kroger Marketplace, 340 apartments. Big station camp behind the hospital. It looks like that might not be happening at this point, but that is approved and that's 300 apartments. Argento 386, which is under construction on Long Hollow Pike and Greenlee Boulevard is 286 apartments. Chandler Marketplace, which is an interesting one to me because that one's on Greenlee Boulevard and Harris Lane. It's an empty piece of land surrounded by apartments already. And the developer is now, it looks like maybe the market is saying that Gallatin is saturated with apartments because they are looking to change their plan and do commercial instead at this point. That was 266 apartments approved. Greenlee Commons, which is between St. Blaise and Greenlee Boulevard. That was apartments, townhouses, and single-family homes. Some of them were supposed to be sold, but now they are all for rent. They will all be for rent. They are also under construction and also partially constructed and for rent at this time. That is 500 plus, more than 500. The Gap Apartments which are across from Lowe's, that is 372 apartments they are now starting to rent. The Nexus Apartments on the 109 and the Highway 25 is 300 apartments. Sunset Farms, which is next to Nexus, which has not broken ground yet, so we don't know how many rentals that will be, possibly 355. The crossings at Hidden Creek, which is on Big Station Camp Boulevard, that is... going to be 144 more apartments. There's also a townhouse development that is all rentals that is under construction and partially rented on the corner of Long Hollow Pike and the 109. And that is called Walnut Crest Townhomes. And that is 150 all for rent townhouses. So that is more than 3000. I count 3,265 apartments that have already been approved that are under construction and just starting to rent. So that is what is already in the pipeline. That's way more than plenty. So I think that it is the, this moratorium on apartments should have been done long ago. And I also want to tell you that in my opinion, if you had just said no to things that were not good for the city of Gallatin, like all these too many apartments, you wouldn't have to have this discussion of a moratorium because it's unfortunate that you just say yes to everything. Anyway, that's my opinion on that. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Mary Jenung, and I live at 1100 Lock 4 Road. And I'm here to talk about the moratorium on apartments. I will tell you that the people I have talked to are in favor of a moratorium on apartments. There's way too many. The consideration is that you've oversaturated the community with the apartments. According to the Planning Department, we have 10,000 doors that are in the pipeline. 5,000 of those are townhouse and apartments. I'm not sure how much more we can handle and what the people can stand. You have to realize when Ms. Vicky came up here and talked about what happened, it's true. It's true that we're getting bombed out there where we are with the dynamiting, and it's disturbing. And I know that you all can't do anything about it because it's state-run. I get that. And we've contacted our state reps. We're getting nowhere. I get it. It's not your fault. However, when you approve developments, that's what's going to happen. They're going to blast and they're going to keep blasting and they're going to blast all day long because that's what's happening to the residents of this community. They're being terrorized by the actual development that's going on. And I will please ask you to stop what you're doing and give a pause. Just give it a pause. And the moratorium, a year, two years, that's great. If you will listen to what people are trying to tell you, I hope that you'll listen and you'll put a moratorium out there. But please think about all the other things that happen when there's development. It's not just a building on a plan. It's everything that happens when they break ground. And it's not in your backyard. I know that. But it's in our backyards, and it's going on all day long, and it's disturbing. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing no one, public recognition on agenda-related items is closed. We'll move now to Mayor's comments. To begin, I would like to say a huge thank you to our city departments who helped make this past weekend celebrating America's 250th very successful. Certainly Parks and Recreation and the event that you had there, police, fire, public works, all of the support that you provided. had for the numerous events that were going on and at the same time taking care of all the fireworks calls that you got, Police Department. There was a lot happening on Saturday and you all did a great job and I'm greatly appreciative for all that you did in preparation and then during the day, and some in the aftermath, too. Certainly want to recognize the American Legion for organizing the parade and the Daughters and Sons of the American Revolution for their event that morning. recognizing or commemorating the patriots of the American Revolution. I will remind you that there is one more big event coming up celebrating, and that one happens tomorrow evening right downtown in historic downtown Gallatin at 5 o'clock until 9 o'clock. Understand they're going to have some food trucks, I think some music, there's going to be a program, and then a drone show when dark happens. And so that's from 5 until 9 up here on the square. A couple of other events you might want... wish to be aware of. There's a ribbon cutting coming up on the 9th for Unlimited Potential's new Blessing Box that Leadership Gallatin's 2026 class has done. That's at 10 a.m. on the 9th. On the 10th is the American Red Cross Blood Drive. Civic Center meeting rooms usually from 11 to 4, like it is that day. The airport breakfast is this Saturday. One of my favorite things that happens here in Gallatin during the warm weather months, that's from 8 until 10 a.m. Market day at the Gallatin Farmer's Market continues each Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. There's also a Christmas in July coming up this weekend. That's from 10 until 2 on the 11th. And then the car cruise in in downtown Gallatin is happening in the City Hall parking lot from 5.30 to 7.30 p.m. Chief Bandy has a birthday on the 13th. There's another Red Cross blood drive that day. The Chamber of Commerce luncheon that day features Director of Schools Scott Langford, and it's actually happening at the new Sumner Innovation Center. And so if you're interested in attending that. You might reach out to the chamber. There is a public hearing coming up also on the 13th, and that is for the CDBG grant. That's here in council chambers at 5 o'clock. There's a free hygiene pantry at unlimited potential on the 14th. There is also a very important joint planning commission and city council committee meeting happening here in council chambers at 4 o'clock. This is about the new land use plan. And so, not A zoning plan, I guess is the better way to say it. I don't like calling it so code. It's new code. So that's happening on next Tuesday at 4 o'clock. There's a legal aid clinic on that day at the Civic Center from 4 until 8 p.m. There's another hygiene pantry coming up at the Shalom Zone on the 15th from 10 until 2. And then Third Thursday is happening again in July on the 16th. And Dree or Dre... Somebody correct me if I'm saying it wrong. Hilton is the artist who will be performing. That starts at 6.30. And then a Fostoria glass show happening at the Civic Center. That's a really popular glass show that happens for two days each year out at the Civic Center. That's the 18th and 19th. And then the last thing I'll mention today. is the American Job Center is having a job fair on the 21st if you're looking for employment from 10 until 1. And I know that our employment is very, very low, but if you're looking, there are some jobs out there. Also, if the council will indulge, do you have a street closure request? Y'all okay with going ahead and addressing that? Okay. This is for the annual festival that Prince Street does, and they are asking to close East Prince Street from Lane Avenue to Northwater on the 15th of August from 2 p.m. until 10 p.m. They've been doing it for years and years and years. We do have the department head signatures and the business owners on that street.

Motion to approve.

I have a motion by Councilman Carter, a second by Councilman Alexander. Any questions? Any discussion? All in favor of approval, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Consider this approved on July 7th of 2026. Now, we shall move on to the regular agenda, and the first item is second reading on Ordinance O2605-42. Councilman Chavax is recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. It's an ordinance of the City of Gallatin, Seminole County, Tennessee, rezoning 25.35 plus or minus acres from mixed-use district to planned general commercial district with an amended preliminary master development plan for the crossroads phase 2 located north of Harris Lane and east of Greenlee Boulevard, authorizing the revision to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, repealing conflicting ordinance, providing for serability, and providing for an effective date. And I so move.

Motion by Councilman Givans. Second. Second by Councilman Alexander. Any questions? Any discussion? Councilman Givans.

Thank you, Mayor. This is needed. It's commercial. Again, like Dagot said, during public comment, this development was initially a hotel and apartments, and he moved out of there, so that should tell us something. So I will be voting yes for it.

I think when we did this, the... We gave them the exception to do the apartments if they put the hotel in first, and they couldn't find a need for the hotel, so that's why they backed out of the apartments. And so they knew they couldn't come and get apartments now, so that's why they're doing the commercial.

I think we're winding up with something far better. Any further questions, discussion? Okay, this is second reading on Ordinance 72605-42. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. It is unanimously approved. Item 2 is second reading on Ordinance 02605-43. Councilman Carter.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, rezoning 4.85 plus or minus acres from the R8 PRD medium density planned residential district to the MU mixed-use district and rezoning 5.25 plus or minus acres from the MU mixed-use district to the PVP planned business park district with an amended preliminary master development plan for the Nexus, Tennessee, Amendment No. 6, located east of State Route 109. North of highway 25 authorizing the revision to be indicated on the official planning or official zoning atlas repealing conflict in ordinances providing for severability and Providing for an effective date not so move Motion by councilman Carter second by vice mayor Hayes or their questions.

Is there any discussion? This is second reading on ordinance. Oh, two six zero five dash 43 on favor say aye opposed say no SECOND READING PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM THREE IS FIRST READING ON ORDINANCE 02605-45, COUNCILMAN FINNELL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS ORDINANCE AMENDED CHAPTER 9, FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION. ARTICLE 6, FIREWORKS OF THE MINISTRIAL CODE PROHIBIT SPARKLING DEVICES AS AUTHORIZED UNDER TENNESSEE CODE ANOINTED AS AMENDED. MOTION TO APPROVE.

Question by Councilman Bonnell, second by Councilman Givant, setting the floor for any questions or discussion. I hope you all appreciated the press release that Mr. Henschel put out that was entitled, No, Gallatin is not banning sparklers. So with that, any further comments, questions? We'll vote on first reading on Ordinance 02605-45. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Passes unanimously. Item 4 is first reading on Ordinance 02606-51. Councilman Givance.

Thank you, Mayor. It's an ordinance of the city of Gallatin approving a preliminary master development plan from Kensley, a residential development on 20.94 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located south of Longolo Park and west on Greenlee Boulevard, authorizing the revision to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, repeating conflicting ordinance, providing for severability and providing for an effective debt. I'll move for discussion.

Question for discussion. Second by Councilman Carter. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Open for discussion. And I do believe that you have a handout on your desk from the representative and Councilman Chibat.

Great you have a handout, but I suppose I don't deserve a handout, even if it's my district, because I did not go to one, but that doesn't matter. I still think there is an issue with parking. Like we talked during the work session, there is not enough parking. It's going to be an issue. We're seeing that all over the city right now on approved development. People park in the street. There is an issue for fire apparatus to go, for emergency vehicle. And at the last meeting, I asked the question how that was going to be handled because telling us that... people could not park on one side of the street or the other side of the street and now the work that can be handled by the HOA. So that's why I have an issue because how an HOA who is a private entity can enforce anything on a public street. I understand the HOA probably, if it's in their covenant, put fine of people who are going to park on the street if they said you can't park in the street. But again, you know, how are you going to enforce that? So I think there is not enough parking and too many exemptions. I think they need to go back to the drawing board and get redesigned to make sure the roads are wide enough so people can park on every side of the street or if it's not the case to make sure that on the plan we have clear clear way to say this street's going to be only park on the left or this street's going to be only park on the right and that's what we're going to do we're going to put sign we're going to paint and that's not there so again i doubt You know, I have a trust issue with that developer in particular, so by personal experience. So I think that should be clear on the plan if we decide that the street is going to be only parked on one side that needs to be on the plan. So I'm going to make a motion to defer until we have a clear view of how the parking is going to be handled on every street of the development.

Motion to defer by Councilman Duvance. Motion dies for lack of a second. Back to discussion.

Motion to approve.

Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, a second by Councilman Carter. Discussion may continue.

The only thing I was going to say, you know, the parking issue. I think, yes, HOA can enforce parking. I know they do in Fairview and Fox. They do that on the street. They can determine if you park in front of your driveway or if you park on the street in front of your house. You cannot do that. Next thing is, I think, if I'm not mistaken, there were double the amount of parking spaces that, correct, Brian, double the amount of parking spaces that we require.

More than double.

More than double of what we require. Okay.

Is there any interest any of the council need to hear from the developer? I don't unless anybody else does.

I don't. I don't. I think we heard enough and I think all of our concerns. If you do. No, I just wanted to make sure. Okay. I think all of our concerns are answered and specific concerns I have from our department heads and first responding departments.

Anyone else over here? Okay, let's vote on first reading on Ordinance 02606-51. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no.

No.

Passes with a vote of 6-1. Item number five, the second reading on Ordinance 02606-52, Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Mayor. Ordinance to vacate right-of-way planted as Rogers Road, totaling 0.22 plus or minus acres in the Quail Creek subdivision. Motion to discuss.

Second. Motion, second. To discuss, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. It's open for discussion. Councilman Duvance.

Thank you, Mayor. Something I said at the last meeting, nothing has been done for so many years. So I don't see any issue with it, the way that was amended with a PUD there. And like I said to you, the initial plan, and it's in a package, showed that that particular development had been accepted by the Sumner County Planning Commission on the 30th of September of 1958. It's on page 140 of the packet. So like I say, that has been accepted on 1958. So if there was need for a road, the road could have been there all these years. I make a motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Councilman Givans. Motion dies for lack of a second. Okay. Motion second.

Only thing I've got to point out is that I think every department head, we're not listening to them, every department head was against this. So I'm just going to throw that out there.

Well, one thing that I would like to say is Mr. Wright, Duke Wright, come and visited with me yesterday, and I did have a discussion with him. It's not that he don't really want the land. He just wants somebody to take care of it. And I said, well, Duke, I said, the city really wants us to keep it for connectivity. And he said, well, you know, a lot of the neighbors over there, once that sign went up, got upset with it because they like the road being a cul-de-sac and where the kids can play and so on and so on. And I kept talking with him. I said, well, in case of emergency happened, You know, that's one reason the city wants it and possibly utilities. And, you know, he said, I understand it, but it's just a really short road. But he goes, you know, Duke did say, well, if the city would agree to clean up and take care of the trees, he would be fine with the city maintaining that as a right of way. But if he's got to go back in there and take care of that land, then I do understand his point of view that he's been taking care of it for years, and I doubt we'll ever do anything with it. But he did offer that up, that he could go either way with this, saying if something was put in writing that the city would take care of the trees if something was to happen.

We have taken care of some trees in the right-of-way when there's an issue, but as far as maintaining the land on a regular basis, I think that's a really dangerous precedent to open the door to. I mean, people take care of city right-of-way every single day when they mow the front of their house, you know?

My biggest concern with this is it wasn't an issue until they brought it up, and it hasn't been an issue for 30-plus years.

Oh.

Now it is an issue.

Well, it's right away that the city has. And we have run into this before, and there are times the engineering will say, we're fine with giving that back to them. It's not going to be utilized. But in this case, they said, we need to keep this. Think in terms of not just exactly as things are built now, but what the future could look like, say a neighborhood were to be redeveloped, either that one or the one adjacent. It could happen.

Could we just put a crash gate up there or something?

You can imagine all sorts of things, but I would think the gentleman probably doesn't want a crash gate if he doesn't want... I mean, to me, that would make the land more difficult for him and unpleasant.

I'm talking about for an emergency. It should be an issue.

It is a right-of-way for... Potential future connectivity. That is what it is right away for. There's not connectivity now that he's trying to take away. It doesn't exist. But it's for the potential of some in the future.

Just an older neighborhood and we went through this. It's been this way for years and years and years. And all of a sudden that's an issue.

Things change over time. We're seeing that in other areas of town.

I'm old, and I don't like change.

Councilman Alexander.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm not laughing at you, laughing at the other comment. I did some looking in deeper and had a discussion with our city engineer concerning... the possibility of a all over the city how can we connect some streets uh... as you know you've heard me talk about you know what can we do to help with traffic this could be a place where we could get some traffic off the main thoroughfares, which are, in my humble opinion, overtaxed right now. So if we can get more cars off the main drags, the better we are. And so if that's a reality, if this council is going to fund a project like that, I'm all for hanging on to it. But if this is something that you know, is going to be done in the 2030s or whatever, you know, I don't know that I would be in favor of hanging on to it. But I would like to see, and maybe the gentleman could come back in a year, and if we haven't done anything, I might feel different. But I would like to see connectivity increased and get more cars off the main drag. So if that could happen in one big project, I like that.

I think sometimes when you're talking particularly about the older neighborhoods, that in redevelopment is when that opportunity occurs. Because I would doubt that the property owner wants the road at this point. But at some point in the future, say they choose to redevelop eight lots right there, it might make sense. And I'm just thinking out loud, which is always dangerous.

Paige, I talked to Mr. Wright, too. I mean, to me, if we're going to make the new neighborhoods have an inlet and outlet for the fire and all, I mean, and I was trying to listen with Brian and the planning, you know, and all that. It would make sense to me to keep it, but like I said, I know Mr. DePriest and them don't have no problem with helping him out with the trees and stuff, too.

I can't promise that, but standing up here, that's a discussion that we can have after the fact.

Like if he's got trees falling down on his house or something, you know what I'm saying? I understand you're trying to get them off there.

Thank you, Mr. DePriest.

I know in my tenure since I've been with the city over seven years, we've taken two trees down over there. They die. They contact us. I'm not sure if it was him or the neighbor, but we've taken two down since I've been here.

Thank you. That's helpful.

They're quick to do that. With that being said, I'll withdraw my second.

Now we're back to the original motion without a second. So I'm going to say that motion dies for lack of a second at this point. Okay. So I guess we move along. If we're not going to vote to approve it, then we can just move along. We don't need to. Yeah, because it's second reading. Okay. All right. We'll move on to item number six, which is first reading on Ordinance 02606-53. Councilman Alexander.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance appropriating $8,270.00. And 74 cents for repairs to the 2019 Spartan Rescue Fire Apparatus. And I so move.

Second. We have a motion by Councilman Alexander, a second by Councilman Carter. Questions or discussions? Hard not fun to repair, isn't it? All right. This is first reading on Ordinance O2606-53. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Passes unanimously. Item 7 is first reading on Ordinance 02606-54, Councilman Phan.

Thank you, Mayor. This is an ordinance amending Gallatin Municipal Code Chapter 9, Fire Protection and Prevention, by amending Article 6, Fireworks. And I still move.

Second.

Motion by Councilman Phan. Second by Councilman Duvance. Questions or discussion? Okay, this is first reading on Ordinance O2606-54. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no. It does pass unanimously. Item 8 is Resolution R2605-39, Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Mayor. A resolution of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, adopting a plan of services for the annexation of 125.48 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located west of Bright's Lane and south of Highway 31E and providing for an effective date. Motion to move.

Second. Motion by Councilman Jones, second by Vice Mayor Hayes. I'm in the floor. Mr. Rose has indicated that he has something to input right here, if that's okay with everybody. All right, Ms. Rose.

Pardon me, but we did revise the resolutions on both of the items eight and nine. There was a question that had got brought up at the last meeting regarding the water provision with Castalian Springs being the provider. So we amended that paragraph to no longer give reference to the city taking over any sort of service within that area. And so all it states now is that the service area is in the Castilian Springs service area for water. I'm gonna pass these both out to you and you can take a copy of them. It's for both items eight and nine.

And it's just, it's an amendment to the plan of services. We would need an amendment from this body.

Yes. I'll make that amendment. Second.

Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Alexander to amend with the water service being corrected on the new version. Does that sound well? That's it. Any more discussion on the amendment? Okay, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no. Amendment passes. Now we're back to the resolution as amended. Questions, discussion? Okay, seeing no one, we'll vote on resolution. R2605-39 as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. No. Passes with a vote of six to one. Item number nine is resolution R2605-40. Councilman Jones again.

Thank you, Mayor. A resolution of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, annexing a 125.48 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located west of Bryce Lane, south of Highway 31, into the City of Gallatin, authorizing the annexed property to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, assigning the annexed area to a council district, repealing conflicting ordinances, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Motion to move.

Second. Motion by Councilman Jones. Second by Councilman Carter. Opening the floor for discussion. Councilman Chivas.

Thank you, Mayor. As always, I cannot vote no for any annexation because Tennessee law is clear on what is expected when a city is in default of a plan of service. No annexation can be made by that city. And we got presentation this year and we got told we're on default on the plan of service. So that's my first thing. Second thing, I was, you know, looking at the planning commission last night, and I was actually surprised to see the both annexation was on our agenda tonight to already been on the planning commission for rezoning. And... It's already there. It's not even annexed in a city. It's already getting talked at the Planning Commission for rezoning, and that's illegal. Okay? Public Chapter 1090 regulates it. Gallatin has relinquished their extraterritorial planning authority, and any rezoning request for land outside Gallatin must wait until the land is inside of the city. The Planning Commission may not hear a rezoning request for land outside of the city limits that the case is. So I would like to know why these two pieces of land were denied for rezoning are already on the Planning Commission. And you're wondering why people think everything is done before.

Okay, whatever. Last night was the Planning Commission information session. It was said that it is not annexed into the city and it cannot be voted on until it is annexed. That was perfectly clear last evening. This was an information session last night. The vote happens at the end of the month.

The information session is part of the planning session where it's done, it's like us, that come to work session, and after, if it's pushed by the planning, it's go to vote.

So again... And there are things that come to this body that can't happen when it comes time to vote on it. This was... And if you will recall, the discussion that goes back... quite some time with this land and the introduction to apply for annexation. And then as they've gone through the process, you have indicated to them that you're only supportive if it becomes industrial. And so that's what they are trying to do, because there was a lot of discussion about, well, what if we do it and then they don't do it and make it industrial? And so I would consider this them trying to make sure that they expedite it. I don't schedule the things, but last night it was just for a presentation of information. No vote was taken. It's different than happens here. I know that you want to try and make it something sinister, and it is not. It is just the process.

It's not sinister. It's just following the laws, and you said it perfectly, you're trying to expedite it. That's your own words.

No, I said they are likely trying to expedite it to honor the direction that this body gave to them. I don't know. They haven't told me that. I'm, again... mentioning what I think they could potentially be doing. I will also say I do not think that they're trying to get it done in some big hurry because they've got a buyer. I could be wrong.

Here's my point on that, what you were talking about. I know six of us out of the seven wanted to see it industrial. Actually, I said that too. That's what we had talked about. So I think that you're just you're putting words and everything into you're trying to stir things up. But I think that that's what they're trying to do. They were trying to make it to help us out to where it doesn't look like we're doing anything and they're going to zone it residential.

I was all for industrial, so don't say six out of seven, because I'm all for it. You can go back and listen. Okay, seven out of seven. I have a problem with that. I have a problem with not following the rules, okay? That should not be...

I think this point... No, I'm not talking about... I think this discussion has reached the end of its time. Let's move on to discussing this and... I don't even remember where we were before the outburst. We're ready to vote on Resolution R2605-40. Was there anyone else who wanted to comment or discuss? Okay, then we will vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. No. Passes six to one. Item 10 is Resolution R2605-41. Councilman Jones again.

Thank you, Mayor. A resolution of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, adopting a plan of services for the annexation of a 129.84 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located west of Bright's Lane and north of Roundtree Drive and providing for an effective date. Motion to move. Second.

I have a motion by Councilman Jones, second by Councilman Carter. It would require the same action as Item 8 did to be amended to correct the water service.

I'll make that amendment.

Okay. Amendment offered by Vice Mayor Hayes. Second. Second by Councilman Jones. Are there questions or discussion on the amendment? Okay, it was Councilman Carter on the second. Okay, well, Ms. Kitt will pick one. Okay, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Okay, now we're back to Resolution R2605-41. Now, as amended, is there discussion or questions related to this? Okay, seeing none, all in favor of Resolution R2605-41 now as amended, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say no.

No.

Passes six to one. Moving to Item 11, it's Resolution R2605-42, Councilman Jones.

Thank you, Mayor. A resolution of the City of Gallatin, Sumner County, Tennessee, annexing a 129.84 plus or minus acre portion of a parcel located west of Bright's Lane and north of Roundtree Drive into the city of Gallatin, authorizing the annexed property to be indicated on the official zoning atlas, assigning the annexed area to a council district, repealing conflicting ordinances, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. Motion to move.

Second. Motion by Councilman Jones. Second by Councilman Carter. Questions? Discussion? Go ahead, Councilman Givans.

Thank you, Mayor. Same comment as before. I cannot vote for any annexation following Tennessee laws.

Connie, anyone else? Okay, this is Resolution R2605-42. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no.

No.

Passes with a vote of 6-1. Item 12 is Resolution R2606-54, Vice Mayor Hayes.

Yes, this is a resolution to revise the personnel classification system and update job descriptions. Motion to approve.

Motion by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Fann. Are there questions? Discussion? Okay, this is Resolution R2606-54. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no. I heard nothing over here. All in favor say aye.

Say yes.

Okay, opposed say no. It does pass unanimously. Item 13 is Resolution R2606-55, Councilman Givans.

Thank you, Mayor. It's a resolution of the City Council, the City of Gallatin, Seminole County, Tennessee, directing the Gallatin Municipal Planning Commission to evaluate the potential moratorium on new application for multifamily development and to provide this body with recommendation and ask to move.

Second. Motion by Councilman Givant, second by Councilman Alexander. Questions, discussion?

This has to go to Planning Commission. They'll review it, then they'll send it back to us for the final vote, correct?

I guess they send a recommendation. Recommendation, yeah.

Okay. Is there a time frame that we want to put on this or anything?

I want to talk about that.

Okay.

Councilman Givant? Yes.

It's kind of interesting, coming back to what just got told before, that that was actually on the agenda last night of the Planning Commission, and that was not talked about. That was deferred. So again, something I'll talk about before being voted, and somehow not. That's just my comment on that. We heard it. I'm listening to my constituents. They all want that moratorium. I think we are oversaturated. The only issue, but I'm going to listen to legal, but I disagree with having to send it to the planning because the moratorium is a process and administrative matter. It's not a land use decision. Under TCA 13-7-201, the municipality chief legislative body, which is us, holds the authority to adopt and amend some ordinances. The planning commission role is to recommend, not to enact. But I'm going to follow Ms. Imacolli, even if I disagree on that.

Anyone else? Okay, Ms. Imacolli.

Yes, this is a zoning amendment. This would be a zoning amendment, so it does need to go to Planning Commission, as I have advised before. In this resolution, what you asked us to do at the last meeting, and Brian and I meant we did exactly what you asked, is we put a two-year moratorium date in the year and also changed apartment to multifamily development. And I have some concerns, first of all, about the two years. If you recall, I did a memo to this body back. It stated May the 7th. And the very first thing, if we were to be challenged, that a court's going to look at is, is the moratorium reasonable in scope and duration? And courts have found that a one-year moratorium can be reasonable. I'm not sure why we picked two years. You would need to provide some type of rational basis, get that on the record as to why we're picking two years. What I would recommend is that you go back to one year, and if at the end of that year you haven't completed all of the research, the study, everything that needs to be done, you can extend it, and that's what other municipalities that have enacted moratorium have done.

Motion to amend for one year.

Thank you. That would be my recommendation. Second.

Motion by Councilman Juwak. Second by Vice Mayor Hayes. Any questions? Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Okay. Passage in. Vice Mayor Hayes.

Did you say something a minute ago that we changed it or y'all did from apartments to multifamily?

Yes, because that's what you asked us to do.

I didn't think we did that. You did. You did. multifamily includes townhomes. Okay. Yeah. I got a problem with that, but I mean, okay, but it'll still go to planning and they can still make the recommendation and we can, they'll might end up changing that or whatever. Correct.

That's correct. They can make a recommendation. But what I do want to let you know is that even though I think the rationale for that was because we don't have apartments that are defined in our zoning ordinance, but what you can do and what other municipalities have done is you can define what an apartment is in your moratorium. Because that's an amendment to the zoning. That's what has to go to Planning Commission. And that would be my recommendation. If you don't do it tonight, I do think you want to be clear to the Planning Commission about exactly what it is you're asking. And I think you could say to make this on apartments to be fined in the future, to be defined by this body or the Planning Commission or however you want to do that. I just do want you to be clear in what you're wanting to do in this moratorium so that we don't get bogged down in does this include townhomes or does it not. And Mr. Rose may have more to add on that because he is the one that came and met with me about what the zoning code says about multifamily.

And I did include a third memo in your packet tonight. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read that, but I included information that pertains to the new zoning ordinance as far as how apartments are defined in that. It's a very loose definition because it's basically a reference to multifamily unit or multifamily building. Both of those definitions were basically sort of referred to as what the definition for apartments would be. And so when you look at that, you're talking about multifamily building or a multifamily building being a building that contains three or more units within that that are attached. And then a multifamily unit is, and it gives a number of different types of things that could be considered multifamily units, different types of apartments, things like that. It does have a separate definition for townhouse in the zoning ordinance, although I feel like it would be hard, we would be hard pressed to somehow separate townhouses from multifamily because of the fact that there are units that are attached and the definition refers to three attached units. So That being said, the zoning ordinance is ahead of schedule than this moratorium would be. And so you're going to be referencing whatever definition you're talking about, either the current zoning ordinance, or if you decide, as Susan mentioned, to include a definition of apartments in the moratorium ordinance, then that can serve as your official definition for purposes of the moratorium. But, I just want to make sure you guys are aware that it could pull in townhomes as Mr. Hayes has suggested if you include it as all multifamily and that would have a much bigger impact on many more dwelling units and businesses and opportunities for living within the city to we want to make sure that we provide cheaper opportunities then then single-family type dwelling unit and that exists as townhomes and apartments and so uh... we don't want to exclude our residents from being able to find affordable or less than the more expensive version of what a house would be to be able to live here. And so take that into account. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Got a question for Brian. Brian, are apartments commercial? properties where townhomes are residential. Is there a distinguishing there?

There is a distinguishing factor there as well. Apartments do get treated as a commercial entity, but the units themselves are still residential. So it's an odd thing with respect to that.

To interject, he's talking about from a tax standpoint, I believe. Well, or...

Are you talking about? That was a way we could define it.

Yeah, because actually you do have privately owned single family homes and town homes being treated as commercial in Sumner County and in other counties based on whether it is a rental or owner occupied. So that kind of gets muddy, if you will. But definitely multifamily are commercial. from a property tax position.

I was just trying to think of a way it could help define it.

And you don't have to necessarily define it tonight if you wanted to amend it back to, say, apartments, just so that the Planning Commission understands. I mean, and if you want to include townhomes, then leave it as multifamily. If you don't want to include townhomes, I would recommend that you amend it back to apartments, and either the Planning Commission can come up with that definition, and you can always revise that when it comes back to you.

That's what I'd like to see us do. I'd like to make an amendment that we change it to apartments and apartments. We can do the definition at a later time. Second on that.

A motion for an amendment by Vice Mayor Hayes, second by Councilman Givance. Discussion on that? Okay, all in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Okay.

One more thing. Sorry. Another thing that was requested at the last meeting, and there was a question about whether or not we could require the Planning Commission to get back with us by a certain date. There's nothing, you have no authority to require them to do anything because they are a separate recommending body. But what I did put in here, if this body wants to do that, is council request that that the Municipal Planning Commission return its recommendation to this body by, and I put a blank, if you want to put a date in there so that you're requesting that they do this, you know, fairly quickly and get it back to you, that's what I would recommend that you do.

You can say as expediently as, you know, possible based on the schedule. Councilman Givance, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. Brian, when is the planning meeting in August, the first one?

I don't know the specific date. I can check the calendar. I forget why you're carrying on.

The information session would be the 3rd, and the voting meeting is the 24th.

It would be the 24th, mm-hmm.

They don't have to vote on it. That's a recommendation, so that can be discussed.

They vote to recommend in their voting meeting, but the informational session is where the initial discussion occurs.

At the information session, the planning commission, it's not like our work sessions where you vote to move it on. It's truly just information. They don't vote in those meetings. So they only have one voting meeting a month.

I'll apologize, too, for putting it on the planning commission's agenda last night. I made the mistake of thinking that we were already there and ready to have them discuss when we hadn't had a vote from this body yet. And so when we looked at it again, we realized that it was a day before. And so I needed to hold off and wait for this body to give official direction to the planning commission. And then we have the discussion afterwards.

Could we have it back by the 25th, you think, of August?

That's the next day after. We'll know the vote afterwards. But we won't have it ready to go in the agenda.

That's true, yeah. What about the first week in September?

I don't see why we couldn't.

When will we meet in September? Are we meeting on the 1st?

I don't know when's Labor Day. We meet on the 1st, and then we have our work session on the 8th. But they would have to, to get it back to you, they would have to vote at that 24th meeting.

So let's put a date of September 8th. Passing on that.

Well, you want it back before that because we have to get it on the agenda. You could say August 25th. It's the next day. They're going to vote the 24th.

And for August 25th.

It would be on the agenda.

Well, that they get it to us, and then we put it on the agenda.

We won't get it until the 8th, though. That's our committee meeting. That's what I'm saying. We need it by the 8th for our committee meeting. That was the date I was shooting for. Put it on the agenda.

What if we say return its recommendation to this body so that it can be on the September 8th work session meeting? How about that?

Yep, that's my motion. Second. Motion second. All in favor? Opposed? Okay, that's three amendments now. Ready to go back?

Motion to approve as amended.

I got a motion. And we voted on all the amendments. So we have Resolution R2606-55 as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Resolution R2605-55 passes unanimously. That concludes the regular agenda. It takes us to other business. Ms. Connie Kittrell does have... An item as our city recorder.

Yes, Mayor. I have two applications from racetrack at two separate locations to sell wine in their retail stores. Dwayne Coleman. Is anyone here? Mr. Coleman, if you'll come up, please. Mr. Coleman, I had not met you, so I wasn't sure who you were. That's fine. But welcome tonight. Thank you. He's a representative for Racetrack here to answer any questions from this body. They have met all the requirements of the city. They're in the right zone and they're... have everything. I just need confirmation from this body.

Motion to approve. Second. Second by Vice Mayor Hayes. Second by Councilman Carter. Any questions? Any discussion?

My question is both of them, both locations. Okay. I'll tell you where they are. Racetrack is on Nashville Pike and the other racetrack is on Southwater.

Correct. 943 Greenlee Boulevard and 1326 Southwater. Thank you. Further questions, discussion? All in favor of approving, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no.

Abstain.

And I have two abstentions. How many abstentions?

It passes four. Passes four and three abstentions.

Okay.

It passed.

It passes with a vote of four to three abstentions. Thank you very much. And thank you, Ms. Kitchell. We'll now... Oh, other business from this body. Sorry. Councilman Givans.

Thank you, Mayor. A few tonight. I brought it up back. months ago and I got asked again I never got an answer about looking at opening the Civic Center on Sunday at least for a few hours so people can we don't have any choice so I know I would like that to get an answer and see if it's feasible or not

Have you talked to Mr. Brown about it? Because it used to be open on Sundays, and Parks and Recreation made the decision to close it, and so they would be the ones to make that decision to reopen based on their staffing and budget, not this body.

Okay. Another thing, because of the IDD was kind of... Interesting process. We got pushed through without any guidelines. As soon as I got passed on the state level, I would like to put that on the next work session, a discussion about putting some guidelines in place for the IDDs so we know what we're dealing with and at least we have something to stand with and not just something arriving to us and tell us, hey, yeah, the 45 days we vote on it, I think that was actually one of the state, that was part of the state resolution that cities should put guidelines to approve or decline IDDs. So I would like to put that discussion next week.

Motion? Is that a motion?

I suppose, if that's how you want to do it.

Motion to add IDDs to next week's work session.

Second.

Motion. Second by Councilman Alexander. I will say I have no idea if EDA could be prepared for that or planning or any other bodies, but I'm happy to vote and have them try and put it on.

If you need more time, I can... Make motion for not the next, but the one after.

I think you'll recall in our previous discussions related to individual IDDs that we have consulted with a lot of experts across the country on IDDs. And while the state law does say that you can set your own guidelines, people tell this over and over again that in their experience was every IDD is going to be different and what they're looking for is going to be different. And sometimes it's better to address them individually because then the city is not bound by what they do have or what they don't have in their own requirements. Go ahead, Ms. Tomikawa.

Ms. Bates and I have talked about very briefly, and I actually had this conversation with someone today. It's not putting in place a policy, but requiring them to have an application, fill out an application so we know when they're coming, and to have in that application a few things like they're going to pay all legal fees, and that way it's more contractual. They have to sign off on it. It's in writing. Before they can even apply. I like that.

Can you get us something for an idea for next week?

Hello. I don't mind helping with this. I don't really know if my department is the one that should be handling them. Some of the upcoming ones are strictly for residential. There is one potential on the horizon for commercial. which we do help recruit commercial, I don't know that we're the best entity to manage the application process and any criteria or rules you might want to attach to that. I'm happy to facilitate that. I just don't know that we're the best to actually write something and make a recommendation because really these are meant... for the most part to help lower housing prices. And that's what I would love to do in the city of Dalton. But you just tell me what direction you'd like for me to go. I'm not a legal expert, but certainly can work with the city attorney.

And the only thing I'll say is to be on next week, that means that we have to have something together in two days. Yeah, like tomorrow. probably we're not going to be able to do.

Would you mind giving us to the second work session in July 28th, I believe?

July 28th, fine with me.

Is that acceptable?

That's fine, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Because I think the issue, you know, is the 45 days. I don't think it's fair for anybody to have a clock starting at 45 days where we have no idea of what's going on. Because that takes more than that to make sure we do the right thing. So I agree.

We can't change that. That's state law.

No, but we can have an application. We can have rules. Say the application has... We have... 30 days to accept or decline the application, and if we accept the application, the clock starts at that time. I think that should be something we could do.

We can look into that and report back to you on July 28th.

I show a second. All in favor of adding to the July 28th agenda, say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Are there other business this evening?

Yes, ma'am. Newman's Crossing, we talked about that. We had HOA president came and talked to us, asking us for help on few things. I know they had a meeting with the PD where, again, we're talking about the HOA taking care of traffic or parking issue, but... I would like to see what we can do because, again, if we – that's something we have to prove there, and now there is an issue because of bad planning or something doesn't work. So I don't think there should be – The resident of there who should have to pay to put sign saying you can park on there or painting the gutter red so people don't park, that's the first thing. So I would like to know what we can do for that. And the second for the issue they have with people crossing through there, Subdivision and the access is mainly originally approved mainly for emergency vehicles. So I would like to see if there is a way we look at that. I talked to Chief Beeman. He went there and looked at the stuff. You won't have an issue if you were putting a gate, emergency gate like we approve now on the most every development coming in front of us. So I would like to put that in the next work session to look at solution to help these residents because they came and asked for help and we should do that because that's our job. They should not be punished because something was approved and now we realize there is an issue.

We have a motion to put down the next work session. Motion second by Councilman Alexander. I will say that I lived for a while in a development with far less parking, and there was never an issue because you would get in really bad trouble with the HOA, and they would ultimately fine you. I see somebody laughing at me. I think she lives in a similar development. Yeah, and you cannot violate the parking restrictions or you're in trouble with the HOA.

That's something that I think they need to do a better job of in that neighborhood is get with the HOA and get it resolved there.

But police department and engineering are also working with them to try and help them formulate solutions. And if there's a city one, they can work with those departments to find it and bring it to this council if it's something that involves money or authority by this body. I don't know what this body thinks that they can create to do within a neighborhood to solve a problem. That has to come from engineering and police and potentially public works, maybe fire.

But if we don't put it on the agenda, that will never happen.

So if it's on the agenda, I would respectfully disagree. There are a lot of things that happen without it being put on an agenda. But when you continue to put things on an agenda that they're already working within their department, what that does is put something as a priority ahead of something else that probably has been being worked on for longer. And everybody is working really hard to do lots of things, but we keep throwing things in front of what they're trying to execute. that sometimes kind of come out of the sky at us. But I know that the police department's had several meetings, and they're trying to help over there. But anyway, we do have a motion and a second to add it.

Did you give us a date? Same date before, July 28th. July 28th, too.

Okay, Councilman Carter?

In my opinion, I don't think we need to add anything else to the agenda or add this topic to the agenda. We have our department heads working with the neighbors that made the complaint and with the HOA, and we just need to give them time to work through the process.

Anything else with discussion?

I mean, what Craig brought up earlier and then the mayor brought up, in my neighborhood, they do enforce that quite heavily, but also I think they take into account on special days, maybe like July 4th or, you know, some heavy lake days or something like that, that there are exceptions. They won't put something in your mailbox.

Anything else? Okay. All in favor of adding to the agenda on July 28th, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

No.

Okay, motion fails to go on the agenda. Any other business this evening? It's six to one. I think it was five to two. Five to two. Okay. Does everyone agree with that?

Okay.

All right. So no other business? No. Okay, we'll move now to public recognition on non-agenda related items. We have come to the end of the meeting, and this is the time where anyone who is with us this evening can speak to an item that's not on the evening's agenda. So if you'd like to do that, I welcome you forward to the podium. Again, you have five minutes, and give us your name and your address for the record.

My name is Nancy Edwards, 423 Deveron Drive, Newman's Crossing. This is actually a different subject, but I do appreciate Councilman Givance bringing up the issue about the parking because we have met with the police department and appreciate their efforts, but it's going to take a lot more than that. Onto my subject. I don't know how this is done between when developers submit their plans for what they want to do with a property, especially when it involves mixed-use commercial and residential. The board, I am a member of the HOA board. We just got notice a couple of weeks ago that the developer is planning on selling the commercial lots that are right next door to us that currently have an easement for stormwater drainage to the master detention ponds that were built on the residential property. There is a table in there that allows for maintenance and repair, but there is nothing in that table or the definitions that allows the residential to get monies from the commercial properties in the event that there is stormwater remediation needed or stormwater monitoring, whatever. So we went to our legal counsel. They said, don't sign it because the developer now needs the board to sign off on these easements, these easement covenants that they put in place back in 2020 and we're not going to sign off on it because if something happens where the runoff from the McDonald's, the Twice Daily, all those shops, it's coming onto our property and we don't want to be hung out to dry if remediation or abatement is needed. So what I'm asking is that whoever is responsible for approving these development plans and these easements where the stormwater drainage is going to be coming directly onto the residential, something needs to be included in those covenants that covers the residents and owners for any stormwater monitoring, remediation, abatement that's needed. So that's what I have to say. Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, public recognition on non-agenda related items is closed. And Ms. Edwards, sadly, I would offer that we do approve the plans. We don't approve the covenants. And that's why when you buy property, you get that big stack of papers. But the agreements on who handles what in the future is within the covenants. And so I don't know what they say, so I can't speak to it. But anyway, I think I understand, but I'm happy to talk to you more about it further, see if there's anything the city can do. And, of course, I am not the legal person. Anyway.

All right, y'all. Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn by Councilman Tannell. Second by Councilman Alexander. All in favor say aye. Aye. Ladies and gentlemen, we're adjourned. Have a good night. Hope to see you on the square tomorrow night for the 250th celebration. And God bless America and God bless each of y'all. Take care of one another. Good night.