Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

And we will try to get to them all. So thank you for being here. And thank you for your patience. As we always do, we're going to start with a prayer and pledge. We've got a room full. I believe we have Fire Chaplain Heather Kirkland here. Fire Chaplain Kirkland. Right in front. Here you are. So Chaplain Kirkland is going to lead us in an invocation followed by the pledge. Would you please rise, please, for that?

gracious father we thank you for bringing us together today for the opportunity to serve our community we ask for your guidance and wisdom over the board of commissioners and consider the matters before us give our commissioners the patience to listen the courage to make the difficult decisions and the wisdom to seek solutions that will benefit the entire community help us as we approach one another with respect integrity and understanding remembering that the decisions affect the lives of many bless our county our residents and our first responders our employees and all that who work hard each day to make this community a better place. May your words of actions today reflect compassion, fairness, and commitment to the public service. Guide us with the work together in unity and spirit of cooperation. May everything we do today be for the good of those who have been entrusted to serve us. In your name, amen.

Amen. Thank you, chaplain. And now would you join me in honoring our nation and our flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. And I will, with that, officially call to order this... Regular meeting of the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners for August 18, 2026. Let the record show that all members are present. The first order of business is to ratify closure of an executive session just completed with no action items coming out of that meeting for action here tonight. Is there a motion to that effect?

Motion to close executive session.

Motion by Commissioner Cagle to close executive session. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Weatherby. All in favor of the motion to close executive session, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously, and we're officially back in open session. We do have several amendments to the agenda. Three are listed on the printed program that you have, if you have that printed program. And those include to remove item 8.5 as previously advertised, also to remove 11.4 as previously advertised, also to add item 10.3. which is to consider a hearing on an appeal of a ZBA, Zoning Board of Appeals, decision. And then two more that have come up even since then that are not on the printed agenda, which we would label here as item 3.4, which would be to add item 6.2, an appointment to our new audit committee, and 3.5 would be to add In addition, item 6.3, which would be to consider a moratorium on apartment development. So that's altogether five amendments, two removals, and three additions. Is there a motion to amend the agenda in that way?

Motion to amend the agenda as presented by the chairman.

Motion by Commissioner Weatherby to make those amendments. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion on that? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and the agenda is hereby amended. We have a proclamation. And we have some folks here I know are here for that. And this is our, it's quite a few, I think. We have our park and rec folks here, Jay Worley, Sean, Bill, anybody who's here with that. And then anybody you want to bring down forward, we're all going to come down and celebrate with you and make a photo op. And we'll come down and present this proclamation. And you've got a lot of players here that I think are involved in this, too. You decide how you want to handle that about maybe a picture.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. We want to welcome everybody to the 2026 Youth Champions Day. This is the 15th year that we've done this. Bill's going to read off what these young men and young women have done over the years. past year, from 25 to 26. He's going to read off their accomplishments and recognize the kids. And then we're going to go outside and take a picture with them. So we'll just let you guys read the proclamation. We'll take a group photo outside. But you guys can finish your business in here. Make sense?

OK. Maybe given the post-conference. We'll do a picture with just the kids. We'll just do that from here. And you take your picture outside. We're real proud of you guys.

Each one of you have the youth sports button pin that we give every year.

So each one of you have those.

So I'll turn it over to Bill and let Bill read off what these kids' accomplishments were this year.

Good evening, everyone. First, thank you to the commissioners for allowing us time to honor these young athletes. We think it's important every year for the things that they do during the year and the fun and the pride that they show for their teams and the community. So we'll go ahead and get started. I'm going to have the first group, the Canton baseball 5U Stingers.

Can you guys all stand up? Canton 5U Stingers.

All right, and I've got some information from the coaches, so I'm going to go ahead and read that, so bear with me. What a season it was for the Canton baseball 5U Stingers. These young ballplayers put together an incredible 19-1 record, bringing home championship titles at the Lake City Classic, the 42 Classic, the Austin Riley Classic, the Chris Sale Gold Bracket State Championship, and the Braves Country World Series. The Stingers didn't just win, they dominated, scoring an amazing 432 runs while allowing only 144, averaging a jaw-dropping 21.6 runs per game compared to just 7.2 runs allowed to their opponents. From the first pitch to the final out, these stingers showed tremendous teamwork, energy, determination, and a whole lot of fun, making this an unforgettable championship season for a very special group of young athletes. All right, now bear with me here. I'm going to just read off some of the young athletes and the coaches. So we've got head coach Jeremy Burns, assistant coaches Danny DeAngelis, Austin Phelps, Harry Pritchett, and Christian Vines. And players, you can wave if you want to. Let them know who you are. We've got Eli Beecham, Jackson Burns, Nico DeAngelis, Andrew Hunt, Chris Manley, Grayson Phelps, Brooks Pritchett, Lennox Vines, Teddy Waddell, Bryce Williams, and Charlie Wernelin. So congratulations to the five U Stingers.

Way to go, Stingers. What a great sign of the future of baseball in Cherokee County, isn't it? Yes.

And we're going to keep it going. Let me have the Canton baseball seven-year-old Stingers go ahead and stand up.

Oh, yeah. Five and seven.

All right, the 7U Canton Stingers competed in six tournaments this summer. The team won four tournaments and finished runner-up and won. The highlight of the season came with the team winning the Braves Country State Championship. And going into Sunday, the final day, the team had to win three games to capture the championship. And over those three games, the Stingers held their opponents to just eight runs while scoring 25 runs. Winning the state championship allowed the Stingers to compete in the Braves Country Championship, where they would finish runner-up, capping off the summer with a 21-3 record, outscoring their opponents 335 to 117. The seven Yucatan Stingers won three other tournaments, the Training Legends Early Bird Bash, Training Legends Respect the Drip, and the Training Legends Go Bananas tournament. And throughout the season, the team remained focused by repeating its team phrase, one team, one dream. Every player, coach, and family member approached the season with a full commitment as one team. And that team was able to achieve their dream of winning a state championship. This special group has asked their names as part of the Canton baseball legacy. And now head coach was Tyler Adams. Assistant coaches, Brad Bowen, Brynn Blanton, Josh Lemons, Jeremy Burns, and Christian Vines. And now the players, Tyler Holmes, Wyatt Adams, Isaiah Vines, Lennox Bailey, Baker Blanton, Briar Adams, Ezra Bowen, Ryan Burns, Clayton Lemons, Easton Godfrey, and Jackson Hoare. Congratulations to the seven-year statement.

Way to go.

All right. And last but not least, we have our Cherokee youth flag football 10U girls team. Stand up, please. The Cherokee County 10U girls flag football all-stars capped off an incredible 2025 season by being crowned the GRPA state champions. Competing against some of the best 10U girl teams from across Georgia, Cherokee, I'm sorry, teams from across Georgia, Cherokee battled through a talented field that included College Park, Camden County, East Point, Liberty County, Gainesville, Washington County, and Jackson County. They were representing District 5 for GRPA in Cherokee County. The Cherokee girls showed determination, teamwork, and a competitive spirit throughout the state tournament. They continued to fight through each round and ultimately finished on top, defeating the best teams in the state and bringing the GRPA 10U Girls Flag Football State Championship home to Cherokee County. This championship was a tremendous accomplishment for the players, coaches, and families who supported the team throughout the tournament. The girls' hard work and dedication paid off as they earned the title of 2025 GRPA 10U Girls Flag Football State Champions. So congratulations, girls and your coaches. Clark Nixon, Patrick Fry, and Aaron Buck. Players are Charlie Abril. Elizabeth Fountain, Charlotte Perkins, Lacey Burton, Kelsey Schaefer, Callie Collins, Kylie Scott, Gracie Buck, Delilah DeBow, Vesper Lowe, Claire Fry, and Sarah Nixons. Congratulations, girls. All right. And I guess you're going to read the proclamation, please. Yes.

Let me read this proclamation. This is for you guys. So a proclamation of the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners. Whereas youth sports in Cherokee County are great teaching tools for accomplishing goals and developing leadership and promoting sportsmanship for young people, and whereas competitive and recreational sports assist in the growth and development of thousands of youth in Cherokee County, and whereas Cherokee Recreation and Parks Agency encourages young people and adults to become more involved in their community, through sports offered by the local leagues and youth athletic associations in Cherokee County. And whereas adult volunteer coaches and league directors are devoting their time and talents and leadership and resources to serving these leaders of tomorrow. And whereas through hard work and determination, these athletes and coaches have represented Cherokee County and their respective teams in an honorable fashion at every level of play. And whereas the 5U Canton Stingers Baseball Team won the Braves Country A World Series Championship and the Chris Sale Gold Bracket State Championship. And whereas the 7U Canton Stingers Baseball Team won the Braves Country A State Championship. And whereas the 10U Cherokee Girls Youth Flag Football Team won the Georgia Recreational and Parks Association State Championship. And whereas the Board of Commissioners hereby acknowledges the contributions of these volunteers and the achievements of these athletes and calls on all our citizens to recognize and congratulate them. Now, therefore, the Board of Commissioners hereby proclaims today, Tuesday, August 18, 2026, as Youth Sports Champions Day in Cherokee County, Georgia, dedicated to these three state championship teams. Thank you so much. We are very proud of you guys. Thanks for winning for us. This is what makes Cherokee great. In the interest of time, we're going to move ahead as these folks file out. I don't have any other announcements. Does anybody on the board have any other announcements? All right, we don't. We do have a vacancy on our board of ethics. This is the board that's under state law was created when this board was created or immediately thereafter to just ride herd over us and oversee us, this board and our appointments. So appointments we make to other boards, and our senior employees of Cherokee County are governed by this board of ethics. So we have a vacancy due to a resignation of a member of that board. It's very important. We need the right kind of person, somebody who's ethically strong, who can figure out the difference between a political attack and a meaningful ethical charge, and can sort through that and take the appropriate actions. No names have been brought forward for that at this time. But if there's somebody who's interested in that board, let us know, and we will consider you for that. It would be to fill an unexpired term that runs just Well, I think it runs three or four more years. It runs through 2030. So actually, three plus years left on that term. That's one item. And now, item 6.2 is not on your printed agenda. That's one we added by amendment. And that is to make an appointment, the final appointment, to our new audit committee. Our new chief financial officer came in with a great idea. And that was to create an internal audit committee that review accounting controls and make sure we have the right kind of controls in place and make sure that our audits are as they should be. And we've created the framework for that committee and staffed four of the five positions. The ordinance that we passed for that calls to have two members of this board sit on it. They would be the chairman. That's me. by just informal agreement, agreed that the second member would be our vice chair, which is a rotating membership. Currently that would be Commissioner Cagle. It would have another elected official within Cherokee County, a county official in Cherokee County. We've agreed and have appointed Chief Solicitor Todd Hayes to that role. And then there would be two citizen appointees. We've appointed citizen Mark Fernandez, and we were looking for a final fifth member, another citizen. We talked about inviting Lewis Klein, a retired banker, a well-known member of the Klein family from the Waleska area, to be the fifth member. I talked to him. He is willing to do it. And so I would make the motion that we appoint Lewis Klein as the fifth member and final member of our audit committee. That's a motion by the chair. Is there a second to that motion? Second. We have a second by Commissioner Cagle. Any discussion? All in favor of appointing Lewis Klein to the Audit Committee, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and Mr. Lewis Klein will fill that out. I'm going to get a meeting set up, an initial organizational meeting set up within the next, hopefully, two weeks for that board to get started. Also, we have our item 6.3. which is added also to this agenda by amendment, and that is to consider a moratorium on apartment development. It was brought forward by Commissioner Weatherby. Commissioner Weatherby, would you want to elaborate on what we have in mind to do there?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to put forth a motion that we immediately set up a 30-day moratorium on approving any apartment complex multifamily rentals. That would be from classification of RM10 to RM16. And we're doing that so as we can start the process of trying to gather some data. Hopefully, it will help us determine how much county services these units use as opposed to regular normal subdivisions, high-density subdivisions, regular subdivisions. It gives us a chance to kind of get a feel for that. And so that's mine.

And I understand this would be a moratorium rezonings as well as on any permits, building or land disturbance permits, or any type of permit for construction.

Right. And actually, I guess part of that motion, too, would be to call for a public hearing at the end of the 30 days or within whenever, close to or within that 30-day period. That would be September 15th would be the meeting that would approximate 30 days. OK.

So we have a motion for a 30-day moratorium on any apartment development, meaning zoning categories RM-10 and RM-16, with the moratorium to include zoning or similar applications as well as any permit applications. And that would extend for 30 days from today. And we would call in advance of that expiration, we're calling for a public hearing on September 15th to consider a longer term moratorium. So that's the motion, right? There's no motion. OK. Do we have a second for that motion? Second. So motion by Commissioner Wetherby, second by Commissioner Cagle. Any discussion?

Yeah, a couple of comments here. So just to clarify. this does not affect any projects that are in process right I know it states that in the next to last whereas here but then in the section 2 under the now therefore it says we will not 30 day moratorium on the acceptance processing consideration of any application request or submission for a permit I'm assuming that excludes permits on items that are already in process?

Yeah, this wouldn't affect anything that's in the pipeline right now. OK. Would not be affected. OK. All right.

That was just the clarification I needed. And yeah, these are always good. And as long as we have an end goal and an end date of what we do with the findings when we find them. And that's spelled out here. So sounds good to me.

All right. Any other comments? We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. And a 30-day moratorium is hereby declared on apartment zonings and development. And a hearing called for on September 15 to consider a longer term moratorium. So that brings us to item seven on our agenda, approval of minutes for August 4th. We've had an opportunity to review those minutes covering the work session, the executive session, and the regular meeting. Any corrections, or is there a motion to approve those minutes?

Motion to approve the minutes for the special call meeting on the 4th, as well as the three regular meetings.

Oh, yeah. Special call meeting. Thank you. So we had a regular and a special meeting that day. So that's a motion by Commissioner Carter.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Weatherby. Any discussion on that motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and the minutes for August 4th are approved. That brings us to the first of I think it's going to be six public hearings this evening. This one is to consider an extension of a moratorium already in place on data center development. We have a staff member. Mr. Day is going to talk us through this. We need to open the hearing.

Make a motion to open the public hearing.

I have a motion by Commissioner Carter to open this hearing. Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. All in favor of opening the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and the public hearing is open. Mr. Day, our community development director, will introduce the topic.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Good evening. You have before you tonight a resolution under this item to enact a 180-day moratorium. on the acceptance of applications for permits, land disturbance, land use amendments, rezoning, or conditional use permit application applications, variance application, and all public hearing applications related to data centers. You enacted a 30-day moratorium last month. This 180-day moratorium, if enacted tonight, and there is a public hearing tonight on this, would provide the time to give staff the opportunity to conduct research, be able to get more public input on potential standards and ordinances and regulations that you may want to enact once the moratorium has ended. And this moratorium being 180 days currently would run through mid-February, and at such time, or prior to that time, you would have the opportunity to extend it or to end it early. And it may be that we have regulations before you through the course of the next six months that you choose to adopt during that time. So right now, as I mentioned, we're in the research phase. And there'll be a public hearing tonight. We'll get a lot of input, presumably. So we'll continue the work. But again, before you tonight is the decision on the moratorium resolution for 180-day extension.

Thank you, Mr. Day. We do have a fairly large number of people signed up to speak. I expect that's why a lot of you folks are here. Glad to have you for that. We're just going to ask that you try to hold it to about three minutes. You'll hear a tone when you get to three minutes. We don't ask you to cut off in the middle of a sentence, but try to wrap it up within a sentence or so when you hear that tone. First one signed up to speak is Sharon Valenti.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Sharon Valenti and I live up the road in Summerwalk. Thank you for your time tonight. I'm asking you to extend the moratorium tonight and I'm asking you to go further. I don't believe a data center belongs in Cherokee County and I want to tell you why. Start with the noise. Data centers run cooling systems and backup generators around the clock every day of the year. Residents near existing facilities describe a constant hum that never stops, even at 3 in the morning. Most noise ordinances, including ours, were written for block parties and barking dogs, not continuous industrial sound. So once a facility is built, there's often nothing on the books making it quiet down. That constant noise does something to our body. It keeps the nervous system in a low-grade state of alarm that's the same stress response the body uses for a real threat, which means a steady drip of stress hormones around the clock. Published research links this kind of ongoing noise exposure to elevated blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and disrupted sleep worse at night when the body needs deep sleep to repair itself. This is documented and measurable, and it happens whether the noise is loud or simply constant. Now think property values. Homeowners near existing data centers report that same pattern nationwide. Buyers see data center on a map and hesitate. They ask about the hum, the generators, the fencing, whether the resale will be harder down the line. Class action lawsuits have already been filed in multiple states over loss of property value and loss of enjoyment of homes near these facilities. If this gets built near a residential area here, the people close to it pay for it in their sleep, in their health, and in what their home is worth. It isn't just us. This county is full of wildlife, and many keep chickens. Research shows chronic noise raises stress hormones in wildlife and disrupts breeding and nesting success. Anyone who moved here for the quiet and the woods should know that a data center changes that for good. I understand the argument for tax revenue. It's real. And I won't pretend otherwise. But that revenue often comes with abatements that reduce it for years, right when infrastructure costs are at its highest. And it doesn't undo the noise, the health impact, or the loss to families who already live here. Please extend that moratorium and use it to say no. This county doesn't need a data center to thrive. It needs roads, waters, and power that already work for people who live here now. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Valenti. Roy Taylor, next step.

Good evening. Roy Taylor, live right here in Canton. I want to thank the county commissioners, all of you, for initiating this moratorium on this very pressing issue of data centers. It is really important, and I'm just so glad when I called to talk about it to Planning and Zoning about a year ago, there were no such plans. And assumptions were being made that you didn't need to do it because who would do one here in Cherokee County? We're too hilly. We're too whatever. But it is an issue. We need it documented. And I thank you very much for bringing this up. I, too, would like you to consider an amendment to extend the time frame. The reason I'm asking you to extend the moratorium time frame is I know that the state legislature already has eight bills coming up having to do with various sections about it. And I believe that it would make sense for the county to take their time to let the legislative session take place and that you would set your date after that so that we would be able to adapt anything that we are doing and work with the new state regs that may come out of this session. I would also, although we have heard the community input, When I looked at the schedule for how the ordinance would go through, it looked more like there would be things proposed and the community could hear what was being proposed. I would like to suggest to the staff that they hold very early on input sessions from the citizens. This is a community-wide issue. We know from last Wednesday that we had good turnout in a very short advertising period of time. Many people are very concerned with the issues that are out there. And there are many. And I don't need to get into them all tonight, because that's part of that next meeting, not tonight's thing. So those are the two asks that I have of you. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Jason Brown.

My name's Jason Brown. I live at 100 Smithwick Boulevard up in Ball Ground. I wanted to come down tonight. I've seen this meeting, short notice. I have a 14-year career, thermal mechanical engineer, certification geothermal dynamics, field specialty, failure analysis, testing, validation, critical systems. So I kind of have an understanding about these data systems, computers, all so forth, comfort needs, different barriers throughout Atlanta. No, we don't have them up here in North Georgia. And so I wanted to come down and give a comment on it, not necessarily much some technical jargon, just talk some common sense. I watched out in Utah, a data company out there, they're suing for the last bit of water out of that Colorado River. Now, Colorado River serves 40 million Americans out there. And I thought, well, now that down the center, he could spend another $100 million or so, because he done spent $10 billion. So if you got $10 billion, you got $100 million, I'm sure. And retrofit it, right? Not need the water. Let $40 million live. Now, he's suing to get the water. And I thought, well, why would somebody here in America want to take the water of $40 million Americans? Well, now I watched up our Heron Brook Farms in Posey, Indiana. They came to him up there, and they said, we'll give you $26 million for this, Brady. He said, no, I'm going to keep growing food. I said, no, we're going to make a desert out of this land. You won't be able to grow nothing here. kind of took me back. I said, well, what good blood of America won't turn that dog-gun farmland into desert? So I got looking it up. Shell companies, you know, fall back, and it falls back to a foreign entity. I said, well, that makes sense. He couldn't be from here if he just won't turn our farmland into desert, won't suck our water up. So I knew right then they'd data centers, because there's two types. I got a colleague, he's in design and installation up north. He's got data centers running right now. 14, 15 years, don't use a drop of water. They support their own power. So there's two types. My comment would be I'd like to see that second type go in. I grew up right up here. I'm invested in. I've watched my property flip in value. That's my nest egg when I grow old. When you see the gray coming in my face, I'll say it. That'd be what I retire on you. Buy me RV, cruise, country, whatever. Now, she was just talking about that noise up our little city in Michigan, Dog Wedge. I don't want to slay the name. Over the last 12 months, that property value up there has lost 24 and 1 half percent of their home values. Now, I've talked about 40, 50 men in my subdivision. I went in 98. And they feel the same way. They've invested deep into their real estate. That's their nest egg. That's all we got. We got calluses on our hands. We work for that property. Now, you come into my life and you tell me, say, well, your nest egg gone because we let data center come here and pull the water out because that land won't be worth two hoops when you pull water. And I know that. You see what I'm saying? And so to me, that's what I want to come there and put my two cents in on because that's all I've got in this world is that retirement and that nest egg. And I don't want to see the water be pulled out and that land become nothing. And that's what they're facing up there, and they're facing all across the country. And I know y'all good folk. Y'all ain't going to let that happen here. I appreciate you.

Thank you, Mr. Brown.

I may be reading this name wrong. It looks like Nicole Fornes. Nicole, correct me on that pronunciation. All right, good.

Thank you. My name is Nicole. I live off prominence in Canton. I am nervous in support of the moratorium and asking you to take it a step further. Here's what we know. Groups like Prime Group Holdings, who is the governing body behind prime storage conversions into data centers, are the same group who are hawking their plan in Holly Springs and were successful in Marietta. And they cannot be trusted, so much so that government organizations as big as the SEC found materially misleading statements made about their company and their operations. What is being done in Marietta is not about one building. It is a template for their company and future plans for those just like it. The bottom line is companies like this, originating from upstate New York, no less, have no place here in Cherokee County, Georgia. Their lack of morals, their buildings, their money, and their vested interests are not welcome here. To be clear, none of these companies care at all about the best interests of Cherokee County, the town of Canton, or their residents. If they actually did, they would not resort to tactics like intimidation, nondisclosure agreements, lawsuits, and rushed building commencement without active permits. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Fornaz. Next up, Leslie Cushman. Leslie Cushman. Yes. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Cushman. Good to see you again. Steven Rogers.

I am Steve Rogers. I'm at the 121 West Putnam Ferry Road. And I am in support of the moratorium. To be honest, you've already heard a lot of what I was going to say already. But I think the only thing I've really missed so far is that having looked into these data centers, where they've really gone sideways and gone really bad, is where communities didn't have ordinances in place. They didn't have good, strong community in place. And that's why I'm asking you all to continue to ordinance to make sure we're in line We have all our eggs in a basket, and like you said, the state already had their stuff in line so that we can be together as a community. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Martha Jean Schindler.

My name is Martha Jean Schindler. I live in Woodstock, Georgia. We had a town hall that you may be aware of where we went over a lot of people's questions and I consolidated them. And I'm going to mention the ones that haven't already been mentioned by others who have spoken. I agree with them and I think a lot of other people do too. First, please pass the 180-day moratorium and extend it. We would like you to consider a special use permit for any data center, require a special use permit for any data center at any scale. Also, put the burden of proof on the applicant and make them show the benefit to the people who actually live here, cradle to grave, for the full life of the facility and after it goes dark. Not just projections, but proof that the data center development, if we allow them, would benefit people because the people who build these don't live in them, on them, around them, or near them. Account for opportunity cost. Land given to a data center is land unavailable to an employer who would hire a real number of people and lasting jobs. Our land is our most valuable resource and it should not be gutted in a money grab for out of state investors for technology that is likely to change drastically and may not even require the kinds of buildings that they are building. Please consider restricting siting to heavy industrial with setbacks that account for that. Measure the noise at the property line with mandatory ongoing testing. Regulate backup generators specifically, including how often and how long they may run. For example, a hyperscale site can carry 20 to 30 diesel units, which are very loud and very bad for the environment. Please fold in the county's existing dark sky rules. Address impervious surface and parking mandates. A facility with 15 employees, most of which wouldn't be there all at once, should not be paving hundreds of acres for cars that never arrive, which adds runoff and heat to the surrounding areas. Bring in independent technical review before this ordinance is finalized and ask the cities to match your timeline. As already mentioned, a developer called Prime Group converts existing storage units into data centers and owns property on Rabbit Hill Road in Poly Springs. So the land is already here and already zoned and already built. Thank you. Not all of the people in attendance at that meeting agreed with everything we said, but that's a consolidation of a lot of the comments and questions and requests that we received. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Shanley. Next up, I'm probably pronouncing this wrong, Liev Alex Black. Correct me on that name.

Hello. I am Leah Vallejo-Black. I live in Canton. Before that, I lived for eight years right at Station 92. And I know that Barry Loudermilk wouldn't show up for anything. I live just down the street from his office. Never heard boo from that man. Now, November's coming up. And I think it only makes sense that if we're talking about something that's going to affect our community forever, that the decision makers that have the power to make our lives so good for all of us, or very difficult for many, that affects all of us. that we should at least wait until more discussions have been had. Now, the meeting in Woodstock, I think it was a resolution, having to do with data centers sharing data with an AI company, that was a discussion that felt very rushed. And I think that... It was a very good thing that we slowed that down. And I'm very concerned that that almost proceeded in the manner that it did. It's very concerning. We're making very big decisions here. Like, we got to wear our big pants. Said as a mother. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Black. Next on the list, Marshall Watson.

Hey there. My name is Marshall Watson. I live at 515 Anthony Place. My property backs up to Allatoona. I am here in favor of the 180-day moratorium. In fact, I think there should be a permanent ban on data centers in this county. I work in technology consulting. I work with large corporations. I advise them on AI, how to adopt AI. And I am vehemently anti-AI in my personal life. $1.5 trillion has already been spent by the major players, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle, OpenAI, Anthropic, et cetera. $1.5 trillion, and not a single dollar of profit. This is a long game for them. They're spending so much money hoping that down the line, they're going to reap windfall profits. And the way they do that is by getting these sweetheart deals, massive tax breaks and cheap land. And it's all done under NDA. Why are these deals being made in secret? I think that we should all be familiar with the quote, democracy dies in darkness. And if we don't know how these deals are being made, we don't know the stipulations, how can we as an informed electorate help you make those decisions? I think we should all see what is going on behind those closed doors. Because at the end of the day, these deals are not being made for our benefit. They're being made for the benefit of very few individuals with enormous bank accounts. These faceless people, these large corporations, are running our lives. The compute costs are just too high right now. But again, these sweetheart deals are what's going to bring down those compute costs. And it's at our detriment. And as we've seen across the country, when these data centers go up, electricity bills will go up. We're already being bent over the barrel by Georgia Power. And that's just going to get worse. I, for one, don't want to see that. I don't think the people here would want to see that either. I think that public opinion is drastically moving in the direction that I would assume most of the people in this audience are feeling right now, which is none of us want this. Data centers can, you know, I might, I might repeat some things that have been said, but data centers can use up to 5 million gallons of water a day. And that's not the hyperscalers. That's just your average data center. That's as much as 16,000 average American households in a single day. I mean, what else could we use that water for? That's incredible. And I think that we all seriously have a moral issue before us. And it's not a 180-day moratorium. It's a permanent ban because we don't need these here. We don't need these anywhere near our communities. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Watson. I definitely am having trouble with the next name. Anna Linares and the second part of the last name you'll have to help me with when you get here.

Good evening. My name is Ana, and I am here today to propose... Can you help me with the full name? Oh, Ana Linares-Cream.

Cream. Okay. I got it. Thank you.

So I am here today to propose a statewide moratorium on the construction of all new data centers with Cherokee County setting the precedent for fighting for the people over the interests of AI and big corporations. According to Georgia... According to Georgia Public Broadcasting, there are currently 81 data centers proposed here. Out of those 81, only 25 release their power generation requirements. So those 25 are going to require 16 gigawatts of power. Georgia Power has only been approved to add 14 gigawatts of new power generation capacity. So that means a shortfall of 22 gigawatts. 22 gigawatts is roughly one Hoover Dam or roughly two plant vocals. That's a lot of power. That's just 25. What about the rest of the 81? Who really knows? Georgia Broadcasting did some analysis, and they figured the shortfall is going to be anywhere between 29 and 58 gigawatts of capacity. Those are very big numbers, so what should that even mean? Right now, Georgia Power produces about 15 gigawatts for the entire state. So we're going to have a shortfall of about double of how much power we currently produce in the state of Georgia. With numbers like these, rolling blackouts are only inevitable. And this has been brought up in this evening, but I'll go ahead and say it. I have yet to cover the prime group, a New York-based firm, that owns Prime Storage in Holly Springs has announced that they have planned to convert their storage facilities all over the nation to data centers. These facilities are really just meant to benefit the pocketbooks of major corporations at the detriment of the people of the community. This is what happens when we have politicians who put the interests of major corporations and the Epstein class ahead of the people that they're supposed to represent. To the sovereign people behind me, this message is also for you. You are not an obstacle to an economic development. You are not something to be managed after the deal has already been made. Your government is meant to work for you, and your elected officials are work for you. With these data centers comes legal loopholes and surveillance practices that directly undermine our Fourth Amendment privacy rights. As I wrap things up, commissioners, I'd like to re-indicate. Sorry. Reiterate how your constituents do not want data centers, and they will remember the choices that you made with the nefarious open AI infrastructure come next election. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Linares-Pennon. Next up, next to last on the list, Michael O'Connor.

Thank you very much for your time. Let me just open by saying I am not anti-development. I'm not anti-data center. I am anti-data center here. We all use it, but we don't have to be the ones to build it. During your study, there's a couple of asks that I would have. Look at a property value study specifically within two mile radius. That and a tract to the next largest piece of power infrastructure. Eminent domain study and being able to look and see how much land is the county going to possibly have to take from people.

And if not, I'm sure we'll figure that out.

A special, a definition for what a data center is. As we know, we still want corporate relocation to some extent. We want those jobs. We want those houses. We want the increase in property value. We want those things here. We don't want to shut someone out who's building a 2,000 square foot data center for their corporate property. internal process. Define what a data center is and know data centers in single-family homes or older multi-family dwellings. This is not something that has started to become a problem, but it is something that's starting to pop up around the country, where you're finding homes that are completely gutted and they were turned into data centers. Back years ago, that was used for something else, and now we're seeing that there are some of these popping up. Forever ban that. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor.

Last one on the list, Julie Kee.

Hello. I am not a scientist.

Could you pull that down? There you go.

I am not a scientist. I am just a substitute teacher and a social studies teacher who never found work and an upholsterer's daughter. But I am concerned about the environmental impact. I think that there's time. I think that we have time to wait. and see and watch these data centers and see what happens to the environment around those centers. I'm concerned about, I know it says that when I Google that there's no radiation impact, but that's also coming from an AI search. We need to make sure that there's no radiation impact. that the water coming into our streams is not overheated, that the noise pollution is not too loud. I think we have time to see what is gathered from other data centers in operation. Also, I'm worried about our land value. If the environment is spoiled, will our land value decrease? I'm not a fan of AI. I see professions leaning on AI too much. students typing papers all out of AI. The dentist, when you go to the dentist, AI is telling them what to do, and it ruins your teeth. I think there should be restrictions on AI, but who am I? But that's just my two cents for what it's worth. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Keene. That's everyone who signed up to speak. Sometimes we extend the hearing and invite others. Really, we've taken a good bit of time. I think we've gotten the drift of what's on most people's mind. And so I'm going to ask your patience in closing the hearing at this time, and then we'll take up the matter.

Make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Carter to close the hearing.

Second. Second by Commissioner Ragsdale. All in favor of closing the public hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously, and the public hearing is closed. We do have before us the question of whether to extend this moratorium for 180 days. Let me just make this comment. I don't feel particularly threatened by data centers in Cherokee County. They're not very interested in us. We don't really have the flat land that they need in large quantities. We're not very interested in them. I think we are more protective of our quality of life than most counties. And these big data centers, in particular, do have characteristics that are adverse to quality of life. So it's not a good marriage, them and us. I agree with, I think, most of you on that. I do remind people when we had this discussion, though, the one good thing about them, well, there may be more than one, but the one good one from where we sit is they pay a ton of taxes. A few of them are getting tax abatements, most are not, not from the local governments anyway. And just to relay a story, it started with nine, now it's 14 data centers coming to Fayette County, a county much like us on the south side of Atlanta. They set aside, and they're kind of open arms to data centers. They found and identified 1,000 acres that they thought would be suitable, set that site aside, and they've now got 14 data centers lined up to come in there. Those 14 data centers will pay one and one-half times as much local property tax as all the rest of Fayette County combined. So they're going to increase their tax revenues by two and a half times. which said another way, allows Fayette County to lower its property tax rates by 60% to 40% of what they are today. So I think it's worth it. I'm willing to pay myself. I'm willing to pay to keep our quality of life in Cherokee County. But I'm willing to pay the difference. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm not communicating. I've tried again. I'm telling you it's worth it. I'd rather pay the higher property taxes than have the data set. Can I say it that way? I'd just rather you not come back in 10 years and say, hey, did you see that Fayette County's got such low property tax rates? Why are yours higher here? Okay. So let's just keep that in mind.

All right. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we enact a 180-day moratorium on the acceptance process and consideration of any application requests or submissions for permit, land use, amendments, rezoning, special use permit, conditional use permits, variances. development permits, signed plans, building permits, or other land disturbing or development approval on all public hearings relating in and whole to part of the development or operation of data centers within unincorporated Cherokee County.

All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Cagle to impose the proposed moratorium for an additional 180 days. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. All right. I've said my piece. Others have comments?

Sure, I'll just make a clarifying statement. So in the moratorium here, it says we do not intend to disturb or prevent the development of any data center that has been previously approved, which we don't have any, or that has applied for development review. None have applied. So just to clear that up, we don't have any in process, and we don't have any that have been approved.

All right, good to know.

Anything else?

All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion to impose this additional 180 days moratorium, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and the 180-day moratorium is . Thank you all for coming. We've got six more public hearings. They'll be even more fun probably than that one. If you don't want to stay for them, we understand. If you do, please stay. The next one coming up is involves TJDJ Enterprises to consider rezoning that was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission. And under our self-imposed rules, if the Planning Commission recommends denial and we want to consider approval, we must hold another public hearing directly before this board. And this is a hearing to do so. We have Ms. Stallings here to, you know, did we ever close that other hearing? Good, thank you. Ms. Stallings is going to introduce this case to us, and we do need to open this hearing.

Make a motion to open the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Carter to open this hearing. Second.

We have a second by Commissioner Cagle. All in favor of opening the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and this public hearing is open. The case number, by the way, is 260611. Ms. Stallings.

All right. So the Planning Commission considered this case to rezone 3.944 acres from general commercial to light industrial. The property is located at 14071 Cumming Highway. way on the far east side of Cumming Highway. So they were asking to rezone to LI. They also requested a concurrent variance to reduce the buffer between the LI and GC property from 30 feet to zero feet. I'll show you on the map on their site plan where that is. So here's kind of the vicinity of that property. Here is the intersection in the lower left-hand corner of where Holbrook Campground comes in, and there's a traffic light there. So it's basically between Holbrook Campground intersection and the Forsyth County line. Here's a little closer view of that property. There's an old restaurant. And I think what it was a service, an auto service facility. They're being significantly impacted by the road widening project. This aerial photo is from 2005. It doesn't really show that. But this road is now in the process of going from two to six lanes. This is what the zoning looks like in that area. This piece is already zoned general commercial. There's general commercial to the east and to the west. And close to half of the northern property line also is bordered by general commercial. The character area from our future development map and our comprehensive plan for this area, there's an underlying suburban growth character area, which relates to residential options, but it also is overlaid with this corridor nodes character area which is supposed to be a combination of office institutional and neighborhood commercial zonings. But you have the existing zoning of it already being general commercial. I do want to note that this is also in that Highway 20 East overlay district. And that will come up at the end. This is the existing site resources map. There is a stream on the west side, and it shows those two existing buildings. And it does already show you where that separation they're proposing between the general commercial on the road frontage and the light industrial in the back. So this is the proposed site plan for this project. They would retain that general commercial, and eventually that would be built out for those kind of uses. They have a light industrial building in the back. It's kind of at an angle. But that has to do with this stream over here and where they can put stormwater and septic. The purple line highlights that boundary between the light industrial and the general commercial, where they're requesting that there be no buffer, because they would be planned all together as a single development. So just a few notes and things to think about. The entrance onto State Route 20 is going to have to be permitted by GDOT and meet all of their requirements because they're going to have to coordinate with that road widening project. The proposed uses are consistent with language in the Highway 20 East overlay, which makes provisions for office and industrial uses. And this is certainly a redevelopment opportunity. Those two buildings that are on the existing frontage, they've kind of reached the end of their lifespan. So it is an opportunity for the community. In opposition to that, corridors and nodes, that character area doesn't really support light industrial. And then just to keep in mind that the future access is going to just be a right in and right out. It's not going to be a full access point. And so that might limit the suitability of that property for all LI uses. Anyone that creates a lot of traffic, it's going to be difficult for them to live in that situation. So those are just some food for thought from the staff report.

Questions for Ms. Stallings? I do have one. Remind us of, you're saying that the corridor character does not support LI. Remind us what the Highway 20 corridor What does it support there in the way of business development?

So the overlay district, the Highway 20 East overlay district, does have language in it that supports the idea of you might have retail and general commercial uses up front, and the property to the rear might be suitable for more intensive LI use because it is screened by those retail and general commercial uses on the State Route 20 frontage.

That's what I was thinking.

But that's in the zoning. That's in the overlay district, but not in the, you know, we haven't updated the future development map and the comprehensive plan related to that Highway 20 East overlay.

Okay. Other questions for Ms. Stallings before we bring up others?

Yeah, didn't the applicant proffer a bunch of conditions? They did.

Thank you for reminding me. I have two slides on the conditions. They proffered a significant list of uses, additional prohibited uses that they would be comfortable with, and then a few other conditions relative to hours of operation, underground utilities, and outdoor lighting.

So the proposed use is an office and warehouse for a contracting business, right?

Yes.

OK. But then they reference closed to the public between 9 and 6. Is it a retail? Is it intended to have some sort of retail component? Or do we know that?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they're going to basically say that the whole thing is going to shut down between 9 PM and 6 AM. Those are above and beyond the requirements that we have in the noise ordinance.

Yeah, what's proposed is closed to the public. Now, that might not mean they're going to shut down. In fact, if it's a manufacturing facility, they're generally never open to the public. So that is a little confusing.

I cut and pasted from their proffered conditions. The applicant does have a representative here. And we'll ask.

Other questions before we go? One other question. On the map, the widening, can you tell us approximately where that is on this map? Or that's not already accounted for in what's shown for Highway 20, is it?

It is. This site plan here does have the full six lanes on it.

So where those trees and bushes are planted would be just outside the right of way, I presume?

Correct. And that's the landscape strip that's required in the overlay district.

OK. Any other questions? We normally invite the applicant or applicant's representative to come up first and present the case.

Thank you. My name is Alice Price, 202 Tribble Gap Road in Cumming. I do have a presentation, if you'll give me just a second to hold that up.

Let's see.

So we are looking at 3.944 acres. It's the rear of a parcel on Highway 20, plans for it to be subdivided in the future. It's currently zoned general commercial. We are asking for light industrial district and that use, as was discussed, contractors establishment, office, warehouse, landscaping company with a little bit of outside storage, which I'll go over as well. As Ms. Stalling said, we are here along Highway 20. This is about the county line right here in the corridor and nodes and Highway 20 East overlay district. And the property that we are talking about is right here. You might be familiar with it as the old Cherokee Ranch property. That was the restaurant that was on the front there. As you can see, a lot of the surrounding property is zone general commercial, including the properties to the east and the west, part to the north, and then across Highway 20 as well. We are requesting to zone the rear of the parcel light industrial. This front of the parcel here will remain general commercial with anticipated development in the future as Highway 20, that redevelopment grows and attracts more businesses. The reason that we feel that light industrial is the best use for the rear of this property and is appropriate for the area is due to the other businesses and other actual development plan of what is going on around the property. In within the general commercial, J&A Landscaping Supplies is directly next door. We have the Free Home Service Center. Chipper Trees is in the rear here. We've got a stone yard and masonry. Superior Fence of Georgia is just right off the screen here. You may remember, as shown on the GIS map, that there used to be a more traditional a retail little strip mall right across the street. Due to the widening of the road, that's no longer there. So there is not really along the stretch of Highway 20 any traditional retail at the moment. And we believe that what we're proposing for this parcel will fit in. perfectly with the development pattern of what's already in this area while also retaining the future option for that retail and restaurant in the front there. Next, I want to talk about the variance that we're requesting. I do want to make it clear that we're not requesting any variances to the exterior boundaries. So there will be 30-foot buffers adjacent to the commercial districts, which is on the east and the west and part of the north of the parcel. The part of the parcel that buffer is next to the r40 that will have a 50 foot buffer and then there will be even more space from that residential area because that's where the proposed septic area is as well We are asking for a variance to the buffer just between the proposed property line. As you can see, the commercial areas in front will have plenty of space for adequate buffering for once the development comes in. And we're mainly requiring it for this part of the boundary, because due to the topography and trying to retain the buffers along the edges of the property, We do need some parking in that area this area on the West side is mostly taken up with stream buffers there won't really be any and growth there won't be any encroachment into the buffer there and This is an example of the proposed building. We are proposing about a 30,000 square foot building. It will be a modern, aesthetically pleasing, with masonry architecture on the outside. There is not a specific end user in mind at the moment, so it could be broken up into smaller offices or warehouses for contractors, builders, that type of company, or could be a larger facility as well, just depending on the end user. As Ms. Stalling said, We are asking essentially for a restricted light industrial and are voluntarily taking these uses off of the table for the project to ensure that the community understands what cannot go in there. because we're not asking for every light industrial use to be allowed there. We just feel that because of what is currently surrounding the property that the light industrial use is a better fit for that portion of the area. We are also asking for a minor area of outdoor storage outside. And this is a very small piece. Just to give you an idea, just some proposed storage bins. This would be if a landscaping company comes there, and there would be some mulch bins outside. This would be... completely screened from the road, both by the building and by the Cherokee County required screening, just proposed to have a small amount of outdoor storage area for the type of businesses that would be using this development. And I will reserve any time at the end for responses or if you have questions.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Price. We have four folks signed up to speak. One indicated in support, but I'm just going to take them in the order that they're on the list. Haley Moore, first up.

Hey. I'm Haley Moore. Thank you for your time. I think it's important that we remain very cognizant of the rezoning in this corridor. With a very close proximity to Forsyth and Fulton counties, the opportunity to attract businesses and investment to this area is crucial. The proposal to rezone from GC to LI is not in the best interest of this community or the county as a whole. It'll have a negative impact on the neighbors. This property sits directly beside residential homes. They are looking to get a blanket rezoning for convenience instead of getting special use permits. It's very vague on their tenants list. In the meeting on June 2nd with the zoning commission, the proposed use would be for a warehouse, contractor trades, construction trades, assembly and processing, landscaping, and open storage. Most of these trades have a broad range of business models. The hours of operation are between, My understanding was from 6 to 10 PM, but it looks like they might have changed it to 9 PM, Monday through Saturday. Most of the proposed tenants will probably use heavy equipment and forklifts, dump trucks, probably have dumpsters. And there's also the open storage area that could house mulch and stuff, and it takes heavy equipment to move that. So the noise would be a hindrance to the neighbors. There are neighbors that sit directly beside and behind this property. The stormwater in the septic will negatively impact the neighbors as well. At the planning and zoning meeting on June 2nd, it was asked, where does LI fit in? Looking at the comprehensive plan and the future growth map, LI zoning is not supported in this area. And that was the main reason of why it was denied by that commission. Suburban growth, its intent is to preserve primarily residential areas that foster a sense of community, recreation, and open space. It's also in the nodes and corridors overlaid with the purpose there is to offer daily conveniences to its residents, very small commercial areas with village-like setting. The zoning suggestions are OI, NC, GC, and AG. which is office industrial, neighborhood commercial, general commercial, and agricultural. And then it's also in the Highway 20 East overlay. That's there to promote aesthetic quality and to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. This talks about the Cherokee Overlay District talks about a planned corporate park, but it doesn't talk about one single area. a 30,000 square foot building. It talks about an industrial park or complex that has a minimum of seven acres and contains three or more buildings planned, that's organized, and managed to function as a unified whole. This doesn't fit, to me, in the Highway 20 East overlay as well. So my takeaways is this is a plan for one big building that will be a big disruptor. now and to the future growth. Many commercial developers do not want to develop next to LI. They would want to sit at a restaurant and have industrial going on right next to you. You shouldn't allow blanket rezoning. That will create issues for the current neighbors and potential issues down the line. um i know general commercial also creates more tax revenue than li the planning and zoning commission said the li is not the right spot for this area i think we should stick to the future growth map and cost comprehensive map the goal should be thoughtful development that encourages people to come to this community to spend money support our local economy and choose cherokee county as a place to invest develop and do business and i think rezoning this from general commercial to li would be a mistake thanks

Thank you, Ms. Moore. Next one to speak is Fred Cato, if I'm reading that correctly. Fred Cato? Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity we have tonight to revisit this. I think we need to get it right, too. First and foremost, the discussion about the surrounding properties is based on how it actually is zoned, but actually how it is used is a different subject. For example, all that property that adjoins this on the north side is mine and my wife's. We have a home there. It's on one point whatever acres. We have approximately five acres, and the rest of it is all commercial. It was spot zoned that way, way before we bought it. And we have utilized a little bit of that as commercial because we have a construction-related business. I am an old design engineer and a licensed commercial industrial builder, contractor, et cetera, from another state. They don't do that in this state like I did around the country. But having said that, We've never been open to the public. We've never really permitted just anybody willy-nilly to come into there. And we've never had hours that were such that we would bother the neighbors behind us, beside us, on both sides. I noticed on the map it says Gaten, and it says masonry. Some of you may know Fred Gaten. And I think his son is kind of handling and running that business for him. He was basically a stone mason. and been in Cherokee County forever and ever and ever. Has a really nice home there. I kind of like it. It's basically the exact same as mine. And he has a lake in front of it. And that's fed by three streams. And that stream goes into another creek. And that creek runs right through our property. And that surrounding on the other side of that, that's zoned commercial. But the only thing that's commercial down through there is what the deer want to do with it and the turkey, et cetera, et cetera. Now, the rest of that property, in front of, between my house and that property line, is a 50-foot perpetual deeded easement recorded in Cherokee County from Highway 20 to the back of our property. But that's also zoned GC. So that setback they're talking about is going to be 30 feet from my driveway. Now, I didn't zone it that way. You guys didn't zone it that way. It was that way many, many years ago. It was spot zoned. I don't want to go there. But yet, at the same time, I have a problem with spot zoning. It doesn't help us to develop a real community that we want to grow and be prosperous and be able to generate tax income, et cetera. Which brings me to another subject. Commercial GC typically generates more taxes than light industrial. And so I'm a little concerned about that part of this, because I sit in on listening to you on the last budget meetings, et cetera. And we are in need of taxation. And this won't make people happy. And I'm like you, Mr. Chairman. I'd rather pay a little bit more property tax than to have some of these other things that we talk about. And we have to meet a budget in our county And having been in this industry for 50 plus years, doing what I've done in developments, et cetera, around the United States and working in county, I understand that all too well. And I want my county, which is Cherokee County, Georgia. I'm not from here, but I've been here enough years now. And some of you know me. I am a Cherokee County person. I want it to grow. I want it to be prosperous. I want to be able to pay our employees. And I want to be able to hire employees No matter what position it is, when we need them, whether it be police officers, firemen, EMTs, whatever it takes, we need to supply that for this community. But in doing that, we need to have a community that will bring people here that want to stay here and spend their money here, etc., And one last thing, please. My home is about 100 yards, and I have bedroom windows across the front of that house, and they're large. And with all the lighting that they're going to have, and the topography goes right down this way, right at my house, it'll destroy it. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

Thank you, Mr. Cato. I'm having great trouble reading the next name. It might be C. Cobble, but that's kind of a guess. Yes.

I'm sorry. No comments.

No, OK. And then this lady was on the last list too, Martha Jean Schindler. Yeah, so you want to speak on both? Perfectly fine to do that.

My name is Martha Jean Schindler. I live in Woodstock, Georgia. And the reason this caught my eye was because developments like these across the country are similar to those who have been converted into data centers. And I'm not saying that's why that they're doing this, but just throwing that out there. But my recommendation and request is to deny it because the variance fails Cherokee County's own standard. And I'm going to get into the weeds here. Section 10.5 and 10.6 relief requires conditions peculiar to the property arising from its size, shape, or topography. And the applicant's justification is that the buffer would not be required if the property was maintained as a single lot. But no boundary exists until this board creates one, and the buffer is triggered by the applicant's own choice to rezone a portion rather than the whole. And that is a self-created hardship. And if you grant it, any other applicant can draw a line and ask you to erase the consequence. The unified ownership argument doesn't survive analysis either. The site plan designates the retained general commercial frontage for a future restaurant, office, or retail. When that frontage sells, you have a zero foot buffer between a light industrial district and commercially zoned property under separate ownership, and nothing in the record binds the new owner. The application also contradicts itself. Response statement number three asserts there is no reasonable use of this property under any other zoning classification, and the reservation of constitutional rights builds a takings claim on that premise. The applicant's own project fact sheet lists the current use as commercial, and both of those things can't be true. Again, sorry for it being very weedy. This site carries two comprehensive plan designations and neither reaches industrial. Corridor and nodes list commercial as primary and residential and institutional as secondary. Suburban growth is low density residential and staff identified this as an opposing factor and then your planning commission acted on that. There is also no sewer here. Environmental health has only said the applicant will need to work with them to evaluate the existing system. Neighbors have raised percolation failure and drainage crossing the septic field, and both were answered with a promise of future permitting review rather than a study, which means they have not looked into what will actually fix that. When residents asked whether the applicant would accept use restrictions, the answer was that the request would be taken into consideration, but no conditions had been offered at the time that I wrote this. An unconditioned light industrial rezoning approves the district, not the applicant, and every permitted use in that district travels with the land. So please vote to deny. Thank you. Hope that made sense. Have a good day.

All right. That's everyone we have signed up to speak. At the risk of extending this further, I'm going to see if anybody else wishes to before I'm OK. And seeing none, we'll give Ms. Price a moment for rebuttal.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to respond. The first thing I did want to respond to, just because I know we have a lot of people in the room that care about it, is we do have listed on our proposed conditions of prohibited uses data centers that will travel with this zoning. So it's not something that in the future with a different developer or a different applicant. They would have to go through the process entirely again. Data centers would not be allowed in this zoning, just to give the community a little bit of help and clarity on that. The other thing I did want to mention is that The site is designed for the light industrial part to be essentially invisible from the road. It will be adequately landscaped from Highway 20, and then there will be buffering in between what will be general commercial and the light industrial is designed so that it will not be really essentially viewed from the road. concerns about the zero buffer there. Because there is a large stream buffer in the area and the way that the topography necessitates the stormwater and the septic area, The placement of the structure and the parking is sort of limited on the site. And so in order, we do have some size and shape concerns that we believe necessitate the variance there. I also wanted to address concerns about the types of businesses going in there. We do have the hours of operation in those conditions, so that would be limited. And then in terms of aesthetic quality and compatible uses, We are proposing a high-end modern building for this area that we believe will be even nicer and fit in with the surrounding uses in the area. So it's not going to seem out of place. It will very much fit in and be a compatible use with what is already in the area. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. With that, I think we can close this hearing. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Carter to close the hearing. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Weatherby. All in favor of the motion to close the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. The public hearing is closed. The question is before us.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do get the surrounding people's concern, but the truth is, I do think that this, to some extent, is what we want on Highway 20. It's about to be a six-lane highway. And we've got surveyors, electricians, HVAC contractors that need flex space. They can't operate in GC under our current zoning. So until we change that, there's really not much we can do. So I'm going to make a motion to approve it with the stipulations provided by the attorney and add a few more into it, including any company that produces nauseous fumes. The buffer will have to be an enhanced buffer. You'll have to get with the arborist and make sure that this thing is not viewable in the wintertime. So if there are hardwood trees, then y'all are going to have to make sure the neighbors can't see it, and that it can't be open for business outside the proposed hours, and that it'll also no landscape supply usage and minimal outside storage, just what you've got drawn here. So I guess that's it. Did you get all that? I need to go back over it? OK. All right.

We have a motion. A motion for approval with a series of additional conditions. And that's by Commissioner Cagle. Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second that. And Margaret, could you go back to the list of proposed conditions? I didn't read fast enough. Where is data center?

I couldn't find it either. I've been looking and looking for data center.

We need to edit.

I didn't see it. So I just wanted to make sure it's there. And if not, make sure that no data center is added to the list.

Oh, did you edit it from what was sent to us? Because I literally copied what I got from you guys.

We can add it to this list.

And then I was also going to propose, it doesn't look like a topo would allow for it, but no, what's the right term? I'm thinking loading dock, but it looks like just flat roll-up doors in the back, but no loading docks. That make sense? You guys get what I'm trying to say, right? That would prevent large truck traffic to some extent coming in and out of this facility.

So just to clarify.

That's a proposal. I'm good with that.

I was going to ask, is that an amendment to the motion?

That's just an idea I had. If you're OK with that, then I would make that amendment to the motion, yes.

I have an amendment proposed and accepted, as I understand it.

Just one last question for clarification. By approval, do you intend to approve the concurrent variance as requested as well? Or are you going to take that up separately?

We'll go ahead and approve it with this. So I guess it would be adding and accept the variance of reducing the buffer between GC and LI.

Yes, my second still applies to that, too.

Let me ask about the motion that included the screening. I think maybe I understood you to say the screening would need to be sufficient that no neighbor can see this building.

Which means that, from what I understand now, it's a combination of hardwoods and evergreens. So the areas where hardwoods are now, the neighbors could still see it. I know they've agreed to reduce the ambient light, turn the street lights down at night. But I would like to see them work with the arborist to enhance it to make sure that it's barely visible, if at all.

Well, there's barely visible and there's can't see. That's a good point. They're not the same thing.

I think our ordinance today is a six foot opaque.

The buffer ordinance refers to providing a year round visual screen. There you go. But that isn't like 100%.

It's usually administered as being something like 70% of the site.

Yeah, I would say 70% to 75%.

Is there a fence proposed along? I don't know. Where'd she go? Is there a fence proposed along where it borders residential? Not at this time. OK. Can we amend it to add a fence? Well, I mean, that's really how you would enhance some of the screening is you would have a full blockage of, let's say, six feet with the landscaping in front of it.

OK. Amend it to add a six foot fence.

And is that around the entire perimeter, or where? Is that just adjoining residential?

On three sides. So it would be on the east, the north, and the west side, spanning all of the LI, not the GC.

So it would be the perimeter of the LI area where it's adjacent? Yes, ma'am.

OK. And you're proposing a six-foot fence with landscaping on the outside of the fence? Yes, sir. And just, Mr. Stallings, I think you've been making notes about all the conditions. I remember hearing no noxious fumes. So there's no noxious fumes?

Can you go back over those?

No landscape supply.

Yeah.

And we've added no data center. Yeah, no data center.

And then limit the outside storage to the fenced-in areas on the plan. Can't add more. And then working with the arborist to enhance the existing 50 foot buffer in addition to the six foot fence. OK. I think that's about as good as we can hide it.

Is there any interest in specifying the fence? Is that a chain link fence? Is that a wooden fence? Any detail there?

I don't think a chain link fence will provide any kind of privacy. Usually we add the word privacy fence. That helps be more specific.

Well, yeah, I meant it to include privacy fence.

OK. All right, other discussion?

Commissioner Ragsdale, does he amend his second?

Yes, so amended. Thank you.

Yes, I think perhaps it's easier to construe that as a motion that you've fleshed out further as we discussed it in a second by Commissioner Ragsdale. and then vote on that, as opposed to, I don't think it was a true amendment because it was really adopted. So I think we have a motion, and we have a second, and we can just vote on that. Do you need that restated, Margaret, or do you think you have that motion?

I think I have most. I'm going to listen to the recording as well. It's a team effort.

This one's somewhat troubling to me. I don't love it, really. And if I lived there, I really wouldn't love it. On the other hand, it is not far from what we have said we want. That is commercial frontage with screened industrial being acceptable behind it. It's not quite hitting the mark. But it's not too far. I mean, at this moment, I'm truly not sure how I'm going to vote in a minute from now. Because it's kind of close, but I just have this feeling we could do better there, you know?

Well, I'm open to amending it again if you've got any additional suggestions. Other comments?

Well, I think if you take away the road widening, take away the overlay, yeah, this is not it. But what we have today is a six lane highway and a new overlay district. So I think to your point, Mr. Chairman, it mostly fits that. And in most cases, mostly fits is about what we're going to get. So yeah, I think it's a start for that area. And the point someone made earlier You've got auto repair nearby. You've got landscape supply already. Those are somewhat light industrial, I think, right? Maybe the auto repair.

It can be in both, either GC or LI.

If this were proposed to be a warehouse, different story. But I would call this a flex space. You're looking for small to medium sized businesses that want 5,000 to 10,000 square feet to run their operation out of. We need that all over the county for small businesses to find a home. So it's a good thing.

All right. Any other comments? Call the question. All in favor of the motion to approve with the rather lengthy list of conditions, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Chairman will vote nay. Motion passes 4 to 1 with the chairman opposing. So that brings us, thank you to those who came for this. We'll move on now to 8.3 on our agenda. Yes, this is a request for Fox Lane Homes to modify a zoning condition that goes back to case number 06-12-084 at the end of Collett Drive. So Ms. Stallings, we need to open this hearing.

Motion to open the public hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Carter to open this hearing. Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. All in favor of opening the hearing, please say aye.

Aye. Any opposed, nay.

Motion carries unanimously. The public hearing is open.

All right, so this is a modification to existing zoning conditions. It goes back to a 2006 rezoning case. And they're asking to modify condition number three, which relates to exterior materials on the front elevations of the homes. Let me give you a little bit of context. Here's the location. It's kind of at the north end of Collett Drive, right where it hits East Cherokee Drive. The Manor at Mill Creek is to the east. And Haley Station, Haley Farm are just to the west of this property. This is the site plan that they have at this point. It has 10 home sites, the smallest of which is 72,000 square feet. So it is a little over an acre and a half in the smallest. And they go up from there. These are some of the elevations that they're presenting as kind of the examples of what they're interested in building on these sites. Circling back to the resolution from 2006, Condition number three reads, the front elevations would be primarily brick, stone, or hard stucco, but may be accented with up to 30% cementitious siding or cedar shake. That is the condition that they're asking to modify. And then we've been working with them to develop this condition down below, saying the homes constructed on slab or basement shall have a water table of natural brick or stone to the bottom of the lowest window sill on the first floor on three sides of the structure. I do want everybody to notice that condition number two says the exterior of the homes on three sides would be any combination of brick, stone, stucco, cementitious siding, or cedar shake, but no vinyl. So there's already kind of a palette that's prescribed by the zoning conditions. One of the reasons for modifying number three is that we don't see a lot of all brick or 70% brick front facades these days. The styles have changed in 20 years. And we see a lot of this kind of modern farmhouse where it makes more sense to have a brick base to the house and then kind of board and batten or lap siding above that. So we're trying to accommodate that kind of style change that's happened in the intervening years. So that is this request.

This brings up an unrelated question in my mind. This seems to be a mix of three different zonings, but yet the plan we saw appeared to be all R60.

Let me go back to the zoning. Actually, I don't have a zoning plan. So this property here was tied in with a much larger zoning.

Oh, OK. This is the pod that's R60 then.

Yeah, this pod actually has an R40 in the center, an R60 on the outside. But all of the lots that they're proposing are R60 or larger. OK, thank you.

OK, so we have just one person signed up to speak, and that's actually in support, the applicant perhaps, Kyle Lynn.

Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you for having us here this evening. It's a very simple request, just an amendment to the zoning modification there. And as Ms. Stalling said earlier, that it is a 20-year-old zoning amendment. We're looking to build homes today that are more in keeping with what's consistent in the county, in the surrounding areas, the surrounding neighborhoods. We built a great high-end home. I do want to clarify, we're not rezoning the property. The property is already LDP approved and developed We're just asking for the exception to reduce the requirement from 70% masonry on the front of the homes to a lower number, and then just transfer that masonry requirement to the sides of the homes to hide the exposed foundations on the sides of the homes and create a more elevated look.

All right.

Any questions for Mr. Lynn? Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Don't have anyone else signed up to speak. Does anyone wish to speak? All right, we can close this hearing. Motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Carter to close the hearing. Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. All in favor of closing the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. The public hearing is closed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion to approve dropping the conditions, but also Replace it with, what did we talk about? The stone on the sides going to the base of the windows? OK.

I believe that's the language that we discussed this afternoon.

I got you. All right. I'll make a motion to relieve them of the, well, if I could read it. Hold on. Let me get my glasses on. Sorry. OK, I'll make a motion to allow that the homes constructed on the slab or basement shall have a water table of natural stone or brick to the bottom of the lowest window sills on the first floor and three sides of the structure. I'm also going to change that to include the rear of the structure, so that way they've got a nice, potentially two foot tall water table all the way around it.

All right, that's a motion. So I have a motion to change the condition three in this image to the one proposed below, but modified to say on all four sides of the structure. Is that an accurate summary? That's correct.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Chairman Coble, would you consider amending that to include the remaining parts of the structure would be cementious siding.

Oh, yeah, I would. You all don't have a problem with party board, right? Party board. OK. And then also to change it to where the remaining front side and rear elevations would be cementious siding.

OK. So it's now replacing this condition identified as three in the original to what's down below, except it's on all four sides. And the remainder of the exterior would be cementitious siding.

Right.

And I'll second that. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Cagle, second by Commissioner Weatherby. Discussion on the motion?

So one question there. Number two in the existing. Is it still up there? Yeah. Calls that out. Says the exterior of the home, some three sides would be any combination of brick, stone, stucco, cementitious siding, and or cedar shakes, but no vinyl. So you're saying only stone.

Very good point.

Or what was it? Only stone, brick, or cementitious siding. So no cedar shakes.

Yeah, but it's all four sides now.

But that would mean no cedar shakes, no stucco. I guess that's it. No stucco, no cedar shakes.

Do you all want to do cedar shakes, by any chance? Because stuccoes.

OK. So in reality, we're replacing conditions two and three, are we not?

We've not advertised that.

Commissioner Ragsdale's. OK. So we'd end up leaving condition two, even though there's potential confusion with new condition three.

They're not really... If you leave two and modify three, I guess three would have to override two. Thoughts on that?

Yes, I guess. Okay.

I guess the point I'm making is that you say two different things, right?

Well, I definitely don't think we want stucco on the outside of the houses out there. No.

OK, so we're set on the motion. We've got a motion to second. Other discussion? I'm modifying my second. OK, so second continues to apply as modified. We're going back to another past coming back to haunt me. This is 19 years ago, and my name cited here is now we're changing things from 19 years ago. Anyway, OK, I think we have everything. We're ready to call a motion. All in favor of the motion as presented, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and the conditions are changed as discussed. All right. Thank you. So let's see. We're still rolling on hearings. We have moves to 8.4. This one is Jeff Rusbridge for Streetside Company, LLC. Modification of zoning condition regarding size of the square footage on townhomes. This was case 24-10-021. Motion to open a public hearing on 8.4. Motion by Commissioner Cagle to open this hearing. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. All in favor of the motion to open the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and this public hearing is open. I saw Mr. Rusbrid. Well, you're going to introduce it for us, right, Ms. Collins?

So this is an application to modify another zoning condition. Excuse me.

Did we open the public hearing? Mr. Chairman. I need to recuse myself from this.

With record show, Commissioner Weatherby is recusing himself from participation in this case and stepping down from the dais.

Ms. Stallings, you can go ahead. All right. So this is a 2024 case. This is a request to modify a condition of that zoning. They're requesting to modify condition number 12, which specifies that there would be 2,700 square feet, a minimum of 2,700 square feet of heated space for each unit. They're asking to reduce that number to 2,200 heated square feet. Just as a reminder, this is the location of this property. It is a townhome development that was recently approved just south of Sixers Road and Bells Ferry. It's kind of between Sixers Road and Ridge Road on Bells Ferry.

It includes all those blue-lined parcels.

That is correct.

All right, so we'll call up Mr. Rustbridge on behalf of the applicant.

Good evening. Thank you for your consideration of this, what we believe was a simple request. It is contested, it appears. But that doesn't mean that it's not simple, at least, in its structure. It's to change one condition from this prior rezoning that allowed the development of townhomes in this area that were adjacent to another townhome development and, of course, also near the Bridge Mill development. As you know, high lending rates, high prices have made fee-simple homeownership more difficult. Even in just the last two years, builders would be building The townhomes in question obviously want to be able to build a product that can accommodate the needs of buyers and that buyers can reasonably afford. That does not mean that these townhomes would be necessarily what we would call affordable housing. Even at 2,200 square feet, the expected price point of these townhomes would be somewhere around $500,000 to $600,000, given area where this site is, and given the quality that is expected. And I'll come back to that in a moment. Discussions with a good number, up to 10, quality builders who you're normally seeing building in this county have made it clear that the current minimum square footage requirement is a stumbling block to a successful neighborhood in this instance. Things have changed. You've seen a lot of townhome requests, et cetera. That world has changed. Rates have changed. Prices have changed. So let me, though, point to, and I'm probably going to save most of my time for rebuttal because, as I said, the request itself is simple. But let me point you back to three other conditions that remain, of course, that I think are important. and you considering this reduction. First is condition number one. The density is not proposed to change. You gave this development a maximum density of four units per acre. So the number of units cannot change just if even the size of the townhomes is changing. So I know sometimes people are concerned you're trying to squeeze more in. Can't be done because that density requirement is exists. And I don't know if you recall, we went back and forth a fair amount about that requirement at the time of the rezoning, and it was important to you at the time. So that remains. Condition 8 required the declaration of covenants to contain language restricting the percentage of units available for rent to no more than 10%. That's another concern people often have is this is going to somehow become a rental community because of a potential smaller square footage. Again, that cannot happen with this condition that remains. And condition number 11 is important as well. And this gives a fair amount of latitude to the county staff in requiring this. And that was purposeful when we applied. And that was that the architecture and design of the residential units shall be comparable to those existing in the adjacent overlook at 6's townhome community. The point was, even though there may be some size difference between those two communities, for the appearance to be identical, but comparable. And so if anyone is, for some reason, concerned that the quality or appearance of what was approved two years ago would change, it can't. And the county staff has wide discretion in enforcing that particular condition. The only reason to make this request is it is what the market is currently practically demanding in this regard. So I will save the remainder of my time for rebuttal.

Thank you. Would it be time for a question from him? Sure. Would you like to answer a question now, Mr. Rustberg? Going to see if you recall, but was this condition of 2,700 square feet, was that presented from the applicant at that time in 2024?

Yes, sir. I believe so. Yes, it was a proffered condition. Yeah. OK. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. So we have several people standing up to speak. First, Mark Pretorius.

Good evening. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. My name is Mark Pretorius. I'm a resident of the Falls of Cherokee. I'm here representing the Safe Sixes community, a coalition of 12 different subdivisions that are and are around the Sixes Road corridor. We vehemently oppose this change. This original property was given 2,700 square feet. Now it's going to be 2,200 square feet, so they can lower the prices of their home. I'm not sure where Sixes Road all of a sudden became the, and he didn't call it affordable housing, and certainly 500,000 is not affordable housing, but lower priced property values are not what we need in this area. The property next door to this is called Overlook. Those townhomes are 4,000 square foot, and they go for a price of $674,000. These are going to be less than that, and again, it's just a further erosion of our property values, and that's what most people around this area are concerned about. Yes, we're concerned about traffic. We're concerned about infrastructure around the schools, which is right down, you know where the school is, right across the street from it. It's just not an appropriate use of this property. The town homes that are being sought everywhere up and down Sixers Road are an inappropriate use. of the properties in the Sixes Corridor. Townhomes don't belong here. Single detached homes do, and not townhomes. But these developers that come in, and this is an Atlanta-based developer, wants to come in, make $5 million, and he doesn't got to live with it. And they never do. They come in, they make their money. I'm not against people making money, but not at my expense and not at the expense of my property value. And that's what's going on here. And so this body has always been, in our opinion, a stalwart in helping us keep our property values along that corridor. We would ask you to deny this change in what was already agreed upon. Typical developers, they get their development set up, and they say, oh, well, we changed our mind. Now we want to come back and make it a little, you know, we want to make it cheaper. Making cheaper houses in that area is not appropriate. And you just had in this room here, you had kids that were standing up that were champions at all the things. You had all these impassioned people stand up and talk about the quality of life during data centers and their opposition to that. It's the same thing with the zoning. You're going to hear us come back again and again and again fighting these developers, who all they care about is coming into our neighborhood. It's an attractive neighborhood. This is a great place. It's the best county in the state to live in. That's why we live here. But we don't need these developers coming in here and putting in these cheap town, not cheap, but lower priced town homes. We're going to fight them tooth and nail. We're going to be here. every single time fighting this tooth and nail. And we urge you to consider your constituents, consider the homeowners who live in this area, and we feel like we're under attack for our property values. Okay? Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Pretorius. Next to speak, Scott Heath.

Scott Heath. Oh, OK, OK. Doesn't wish to speak at this time. Mike? How many times? Chanel? Chanel. Chanel, yes, OK.

I didn't realize when I put my name on there, I would be speechless.

So my comment's going to be off the cuff.

I live in Bridgeville, and I'm going to be one of the property owners that that is going to back up to. So whatever your decision is, I'm going to see every day that I live there. I've lived there for 26 years. And I backed up. I'm going to back up to that subdivision and see it. And I might get called up here. And I was thinking about Sixes Road. And if you look at Sixes Road, the character of the subdivisions, Lake Sovereign, Falls of Cherokee, Bridge Mill. was what attracted us 26 years ago. Holly Springs allowed a small subdivision to come in there, completely out of character. If you know where I'm talking about, right by the mill over there. I think that What they're going to put in is not going to be in character with the rest of the subdivisions in that area. I'm not opposed to subdivisions. If you notice all the trees, you come down Sixers Road, as you know, is an old gold mining area. Lots of trees in that area. Subdivisions are very well kept. But townhouses have no business being there. That's all I got to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chennail. Sandra Harris. Sandra Harris? Yes. OK. You don't have to speak. You're welcome to speak.

So my name is Sandra Harris, and I live at 8600 Bells Ferry Road, which backs up directly to this mess. I bought my home in 2024, my first home I ever bought, Cherokee County, because we love it here. I do live on Bells Ferry, which is not the best road to live on, but my backyard is beautiful. I have wildlife. My grandkids can go in the backyard and play. I don't have to worry about anything. But when these townhomes come, that's going to change everything. Because they have come in and coerced my elderly neighbors into selling their property. So all of that is gone. Their road is going to be right against my property. My wildlife is gone. My sanctuary in my backyard is gone. My property value goes down. So for a first time home buyer at 54 years old, it really peeves me. And I ask you to please, I don't care about the corporation making money. I care about my property value. I care about what I work for and put into my home. I don't care about their money. Please do not allow them to make this change. If they can't build the homes, that's not my problem. I have to have a home to live in. That's my priority. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Harris. Tom Teague. I saw Tom Teague here. There he is.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Carter, and distinguished Board of Commissioners, my name is Tom Teague, and I live in Bridge Mill. And it's an honor to be speaking before you tonight. I would rather not have followed Mark Pretorius, but that's the luck of the draw. I'd like to say I'm speaking in support tonight of the homeowners of Bridge Mill and other neighborhoods in the area who are concerned about the incursion of high density RTH multifamily zoning in a dense R40 single family residential district. We're not opposed to townhomes, per se, but we are very opposed to real estate developers who plop down 40-foot-high boxes on 18 acres of clear-cut, deforested land and then move on to their next investment project. And that is something that people have been very vocal about that. And the county commission is the only thing that stands in the way of protecting that. The main points that I want to consider is we are specifically against this modification that was proposed being approved. We believe the reduced square footage of this development will negatively impact home values in Bridgeville. And the proposed 19% decrease in square footage from $2,700 to $2,200 will widen the price gap even further with adjacent neighborhoods. In the past, the developer has claimed the construction to be on par with two other luxury townhome developments nearby, the Overlook at Sixes and Heron Point built on the Bridge Mill Athletic Club property. In comparison, the average price of the secluded townhomes at the Overlook is $675,000 with 3,160 square feet. The average price of townhomes at Heron Point and Bridge Mill is $822,000 with an average size of 4,150 feet. The proposed development of this, it was shaky at first. But to do this with even less square footage is absolutely, there is no comparable way that this makes sense in our humble opinion. In closing, I would just like to say that we ask the County Commission to deny this request for the square foot reduction and maintain the previously approved zoning. We ask that you will help stop the plop of boxes on Bells Ferry Road and Sixes Road corridor. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. T. Vince Lineman.

I'm Vince Lineman, also in the Bridge Mill community. I've been following this development all along. Excuse me. We know townhounds are coming. We can't stop them. But my request is that let's make them fit with the surrounding area. And that was the intent when it was approved. So what I think you're looking at here as a bait and switch. They came in, they agreed to this. They've gotten some buy-in with the community because they were comparing them to the neighboring townhomes, but now dropping them this level of square footage, it's not even a compare. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lanamay. I'm struggling to read the next one. Harold Schuster? That's a guess, really. H-E-R-A? Soleil Belmont Park? No? I hope I'm not just butchering the name so bad you don't recognize it. We'll move on and see what happens.

Somebody speaking about the other.

Could have been another one. Deborah Frieden. There's somebody signed up after you. OK, I'm good.

Look, my name is Deborah Frieden. I live in the 6th Community. And I'm here because 2,200 square feet is double Double the size of my very first home I bought when I was 21. I lived in Cobb County, bought a little 70s brick ranch, determined that I was going to be ahead of everybody else. And these condos are double that size. And we were a two bedroom, one bath with four people and a dog. And it was insane. And these are really small. for this community, we moved from Cobb County because Austell boomed, Powder Springs was booming. We got pushed out and then we came up to visit a friend and we fell in love with Cherokee. Marietta was my home. I went to Marietta High School. I've lived in Cobb County, but I've been here 24 years, and I want to die here. This is where I want to be. And so I come and I fight for the quality, quality, quality. Quality home, quality build, quality neighborhood, and keep it contiguous with what is there. And we're in an area where we are backed right into Woodstock, Holly Springs, right on that exit 11. And they're doing the Wildcat project. And I think we have over 40 acres that are still available on Sixes Road to be developed, not including the Chattin property. which we don't, you know, that's his private property. He's going to propose whatever he proposes. But we just got done fighting a proposed community by Brock Built Homes from Holly Springs area. And they wanted to put almost eight per acre. And they would have been right up against our neighborhood. We are one acre lots. It's just crazy. And so we go back and forth between whichever community, whether it's Commission, Holly Springs, or Woodstock. So I'm here to ask you to please not reduce the size of it. They're trying to attract a higher price, higher dollar, higher quality person. They can afford to do that. If you move to a quality community, you're prepared to pay the money that is setting the standard of that community. They want to move to our community because there are bigger homes, bigger lots, lots of trees, access to the interstate. We're probably going to get more medical. And I can't wait for the wildcat project to come to fruition. But with the high density threat from Holly Springs, and the county, and Woodstock coming up, which I think is pretty much built out with the Hums. They've done a really good job on that. But I just want to ask you to please don't start reducing. When they come in and they ask for reductions and exceptions, it sets the tone for other developers that we're going to be dealing with in the future. So please help us out here. And just keep what they agreed to with a lot of buffers. We love those buffers. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Friedman. Last one signed up to speak, and I may be missing this name too, Mark Juday, it looks like, Judy? Mark Juday? If you would say that again for us when you get here. Mark Juday. Juday, okay.

Mark Juday. Well, I feel like a little bit of an outsider because I am in one of these townhomes at overlook at sixes and I do remember in October 24 When we had some hearings already. I know that we've already Changed one of the buffers which I agreed with you Chairman Johnson that I don't I don't think we should have reduced the buffer from Bells Ferry Road either from 75 to 50 feet I think we have some problems when we do want to widen Bells Ferry feel a lot like some of the folks here a little bit of a bait-and-switch with some of the things that are going on we went through so many issues back in 24 which got your all's consideration and We came up with this agreement, and one of the key things was, architecturally, it was going to be similar to Overlook at Sixes. When I moved in, I haven't been there very long, but when I moved in, it's a secluded, very secluded neighborhood. You don't even see it off of Bells Ferry. And architecturally, To me, size matters too, not just the paint color on the exterior, that it looks the same. And I think we really do need to stay where we were, 2,700 square feet, and not go smaller. One of the things I do wonder about is the access. I know that on the original proposal, there's going to be one access driveway off of Bell's Ferry. I'm not sure I can see it on the map where that access road is Perhaps I'm missing it, but I do Want to make comment that we that we don't allow that access to be the off of the Straddleburg Avenue our Staddle Bridge Avenue access that's right there now that's kind of a secluded entryway into Overlook at the Sixes now would create a huge problem if there was joint access to both these complexes. So I just would bring that up as a point of matter at this point. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Giuday. That's everyone who signed up to speak. That was the one that I was confused about the name, perhaps. Does anyone else wish to speak? I think we owe Mr. Rustbridge a little time to close and offer some rebuttal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Most of the arguments that you've heard tonight you heard two years ago when this application was made. And let's be honest, I think, we didn't have people come speak in favor of this when we were proposing 2,700 square foot minimum. Everybody came and spoke against. Because in truth, people that are opposed are opposed to townhomes. But you determined, as you should have, that this site was appropriate for those, especially given the nature of the area and because of the adjacent townhome development. I'd like to address the notion that smaller homes or lower-priced homes somehow bring down the values of larger homes or higher-priced homes. They don't. There is no evidence of that. In fact, many communities, Bridge Mill included, have a large variety of sizes of homes. River Green's another example, where there are townhomes generally in the front of the development, and you get farther back, and there are larger homes in the back. Price is determined in part by square footage. And so if you have a larger home, the fact that there is a smaller home in a neighboring development doesn't mean your home is worth less. It's just not true. I understand the fear about that, but it just doesn't bear out. So there is nothing in the nature of reducing the square footage of these homes by 500 square feet that is going to affect the value of anybody else's home. it will affect only the value of these. And against the argument that the developer is trying to make more money, the developer may make less money, because we're talking about a lower price point than perhaps they could have attained with 2,700 square feet. The developer has talked to a number of builders, including the builder of Overlook at sixes, who, and this is hearsay, so I can't prove that this is what he said, but what he said was you couldn't develop that today. The market just doesn't allow for that type of townhome development at those prices anymore. And builders won't accept this project with the 2,700 square foot minimum. It's just not, unfortunately, no longer workable. And I want you to think about size. People were calling 2,200 square foot home a small home. My wife and I raised two kids in a 2,200 square foot home not far from this location for a large number of years. And we were very comfortable in those 2,200 square feet. It's not a small home. My dad would come to visit and talk about how big our house was. And my guess would be you've all probably lived in a house that size sometime in your life or smaller and had plenty of room. That's not a little home. If we are for some reason saying that you are only going to accept homes near Bridge Mill or on Sixers Road that are $750,000 or more, that would be an unreasonable position to impose that kind of requirement and say, we're not going to let anybody else come into this area. We're not going to let people come in that can afford a $500,000 home. It's got to be this. That's unreasonable. Again, here you've got, in nature, perhaps the smaller townhomes that are in the front. You've got larger townhomes. And then you get into Bridge Mill with all of its varied styles. So there is not a real reason, other than just being opposed to townhomes in general and hoping that the development doesn't happen, to not reduce the minimum square footage by 500 square feet. It doesn't change any of the other conditions. It doesn't change the architectural requirements. They will still look nice because they have to. There can't be more of them because there can't be. And so it's just the market. There is no, I understand the argument of bait and switch. It sounds funky. Why aren't you coming back and asking for something different? It's just the market. That's what it is asking for. And it's certainly not, in this case, an unreasonable request. So we would ask that you grant the one change in condition. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Westbridge.

Okay, I think everybody that's going to speak, we can close this hearing now. Motion to close the hearing. Motion by Commissioner Cagle to close the public hearing. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Carter. So all in favor of closing the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously with the one extension that Commissioner Weatherby has recused himself from this case. So the public hearing is closed. Do you have any other thoughts for us? Ms. Stallings?

I do not.

All right. Mr. Chairman.

I had a question. This is not necessarily what we're deciding, but it's just a question. I think the applicant said a total of 80 homes, 73. OK, I thought I heard a number of 80. If we look at the plan, And thanks to this high pad, I can go back to the original plan. There were 80 shown on the plan. What we're looking at tonight shows 73. So I just want to make sure it is 73. Yeah, we started out with .. That's where our discussion .. OK. OK. So yeah, that point was brought up by one of the speakers. Smaller homes, trying to put more on it, but just wanted to clear that up that it is 73.

Well, I was just going to say, when this rezoning application was approved in late 2024, we had an awful lot of discussion because it is adjacent to the overlook at Sixes, which are townhomes and have been there for about 20 years. And so there was a lot of comparison, a lot of concern. And as you see from the conditions, we wanted this development to mirror or appear like that overlook at Sixes. And I think, as I asked Mr. Rusbridge, this 2,700 square foot was put in there by the developer. It's comparable to what the overlook at Sixes is, except they have exceeded that. And what was commented earlier today, most of those townhomes are 3,000 plus square foot in that area, and some even greater than that. And so with that, I'm going to be reluctant to approve this reduction in square footage. I think it's appropriate.

And I'll go ahead and make that motion that we deny this request. We have a motion from Commissioner Carter to deny the request for the reduction in square footage. Is there a second? Second. We have a second from Commissioner Cagle. By way of discussion, I'll say I remember the zoning and development of the Overlook townhomes in I don't remember for sure if I voted for them, but I must have, because I was very apprehensive about how they would turn out. And right there at Bridge Mill. And I'll have to say, it might be, to this day, the only townhome development that I've ever been pleasantly surprised with. It's really beautiful. And so when this one came along, I have been hopeful that it would be comparable. And I think the intent of this board is to do what we can to keep it that way. Other discussion? All right, we'll call the question. All in favor of the motion to deny the application or the request to reduce the square footage of these proposed townhomes, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, no. The motion carries unanimously, except for the abstention. Thank you. Let the record show, Commissioner Weatherby did abstain, and otherwise 4-0 in favor of the motion to deny. All right, so thank you. Still two more hearings. One was withdrawn. We've removed item 8.5 from our agenda. So we're moving on to 8.6. This is a public hearing about a proposed AG-5 rural residential subdivision . Mr. Brantley Day will introduce this one. And I guess we need to open this hearing. Motion to open the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Carter to open the hearing.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Cagle. All in favor of opening the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. The public hearing is open.

Mr. Day, tell us what we've got here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Good evening. We have before you tonight, as you said, item 8.6, the rural residential subdivision, the AG5 ordinance. And as I mentioned at the work session and as we discussed then, I kind of wanted to give you an overview of where we stand today. Discussed was tabling the ordinance to September, September 15. But I wanted to go ahead and give you an overview. And obviously, the public hearing is being conducted and get feedback from you as well as the public. This project started and our representatives from Kimley Horne are also with us tonight, Tim and Chris. They have assisted us with this project going back into the spring. helping us do public outreach, helping us focus group, get input from utilities and subject matter experts and the community, working with developers and builders and property owners and residents to understand what the community is looking for on this. And AG5, as we're calling it, is a new residential subdivision type proposed for the rural areas of the county. promoting very low density with larger lights, minimal private infrastructure and access, and streamline requirements to expedite project delivery and reduce costs. And so we've had, through the course of the last few weeks, the ordinance draft has kind of come together and it's, It's like we talked about earlier. It's kind of in that last 10% phase where we're trying to fine tune it and get it where it needs to be, make sure we're capturing everything correctly. So we had, I want to kind of go over the, hit the highlights on this table. We had an initial draft. We were proposing AG5 as a new zoning district. Now it is actually being proposed as a permitted use. It'd be like a subdivision type, a permitted use in AG and R80. The location was initially countywide. We had not really defined a specific area. through the course of working on this draft. One proposal is, do we limit it to District 1? That is something I think needs further discussion. The minimum lot size, as the name would indicate, five acre lots, is what we started off with, with the idea that it would be a small subdivision with five acre lots. It's actually now possibly going to be an average of five acres on one easement with a minimum lot size of two acres. And as we discussed earlier, it could be a situation where the property has some topographical challenges on it. And in the front, perhaps, the lots are smaller toward the back, where the topo is a little bit more difficult. The lots are larger, but the average is five. So that was one thing that was proposed. And again, when we were looking at it before, it was five acre lots. basically having 10 five-acre lots on two different easements, 20 lots max, now potentially 25 lots on one access easement. The lot width is relatively the same, 150 down to 120. The max lot coverage was 15%. But again, that is going to be difficult to monitor and to enforce. And along with that, we actually had the 25% maximum disturbed area, which I think assists with that. And that's kind of the next item, going from what was 75% kind of preserved area, really looking at it more of it from a 25% disturbed, maximum disturbed area per lot.

So are these two saying the same thing?

No, because the 75% was kind of turning on its head where the indication was that 75% of the lot would need to be preserved. I guess in a matter of speaking, if you're not disturbing it, it would be preserved. But the assumption, I think, was that it It would be like common lands in a neighborhood where it would be permanently protected. And that was really not the intent. And I recall that I received feedback from you all about the fact that we were trying to limit the disturbance to 25%. So I thought that might be a little bit better way to say it.

So it would be 75% presumably undisturbed, but you're just going to focus on the maximum 25% disturbed. Yes, sir.

That's correct. The front yard setback actually remains 50 feet if a lot were to front a county road or a public road. But on the easement or the private access, it's 20 feet that is proposed from the edge of the easement. And I'll get to the easement width in a minute. But I'll just get down to that now. So 50 feet would be proposed for the width. So the 20 feet would be from the edge of the 50. Or would the property line in the center of the easement it would be a 45-foot setback. And again, the thinking on that was from the feedback we received is you can always go back further, of course, but being able to provide a certain frontage or build to line on the easement was seen as desirable. The side yards remained at 30. And I mentioned the easements went from 60 to 50 potentially. And then the road width, we talked about that earlier. That's something we're still exploring. Will I need to confer further with the fire department on that to see is there some regulation that would not allow that? Is it possible to go down to 18 as long as we have drivable surfaces? We'll need to further kind of run that down. Additionally, this... Being that this is a rural subdivision with, as you said, the presumption is the vast majority of the lands would be preserved due to the fact that only a portion of the lots will be graded, it is exempt from the tree ordinance. The infrastructure will be private, private streets. It opens up the possibility to have gravel and chip and tar type roads, as long as whatever road surfaces they put in do support the 75,000 pounds. that's required by the fire department. Stormwater requirements, we're looking at more of the low impact, kind of working with the topography approach to provide additional options for stormwater retention. There's actually not going to be a water quality requirement, which you would typically have in a more urban setting or suburban environment. So that is definitely going to reduce costs where they're just containing the water, not necessarily having to treat the water, because it's a much larger area that's preserved. The fire protection, we're continuing to work on that. That's a critical path with this. We've made a lot of headway trying to kind of balance the need to have some sort of protection, but also understanding that one of the missions of the project is to reduce costs and streamline construction and project delivery. and finding that right balance and kind of what is that base requirement under state law and working with our fire department, our attorney on that. The covenants conditions and restrictions with the private infrastructure and the private roads, everything is going to be important to have everything memorialized correctly in the CC&Rs and in the deed work and in the final plats. So all of that is part of that, and there'll be exhibits on that. We mentioned earlier, too, we've set forth, proposed three options for an applicant to pursue some relief under this ordinance. You can't think of everything, right? It's the things that we can't think of that always come back to get us later. So we've built in a design review, an administrative variance, and an appeals process directly to this board that would enable someone to come in and be able to propose a project. Maybe it wasn't exactly like all of the stipulations in here, but if you feel like it meets the intent, then you might see a way to approve it and let the applicant move forward. So we wanted to make that straightforward and streamline that. The administrative process and the planning process operates largely like what we have today. I think that there's some things that we can further streamline with that that we're exploring. That's kind of the overview of where we stand today. We look forward to getting more public comment about this idea and this concept and more feedback from you as well. And we appreciate the opportunity to come back in September and at that time have a final draft that could be recommended for adoption.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for Brantley before we let him sit down? All right. Thank you. We do have one person signed up to speak, Ms. Cox.

OK. Can you hear me?

Will you bring it down, Ms. Cox?

It's not too loud.

I said Ms. Cox. This, for the record, is Ursula Cox. Yes.

Pardon?

I was just saying your full name so that would be on the table.

OK. I think this is a great idea in many ways. And it's time has come, and we want to encourage it. And in wanting to encourage it, I'm very leery. And I'm not the only person who is in this county. And I've talked to people who make these decisions, people who are elected. people who are appointed, people who are in the business. This idea of these administrative variances for some of these, I know it's to make it streamlined. And I know no developer likes stormwater rules. They don't like public hearings, this sort of thing. But that caution is indicated. If you're going to have a variance, you have it before you guys or the ZBA. That shouldn't hold you up. But having it, I mean, I have this, to use a Mike Bray term, I am personally familiar with what can happen with administrative variances. And it's interesting with this, and I notice the difference in things here in what Brantley was talking about. And we do need more time. I don't know whether, and I'm not kicking the can down the road. Because this is needed. But we don't need to have any administrative variances in there. If you have a stormwater problem or an issue, then you talk to the state or a local people and the EPD or the Army Corps of Engineers. One thing I see in here, it talks about this is for administrative plan review and approval without requiring a separate rezoning application by the property owner provided. proposed plan development meets requirements of this ordinance. Well, how does this, the way this is being presented, and I know we want to make it easy for people to do and attractive for them to do. We want them to do this kind of development. But how does zoning procedure law, OCGA 3666-1, reconcile with how this is presented? Because it's like one minute. We don't need to have a public hearing or involve what we know is zoning procedure. And then the next minute, we do. And this is just a quick question. What if you own the land? And I said, I want that AG-5 zoning on the farm. And I'm not going to put a subdivision there, but I just want five-acre lots. Do I have to commit to these access standards and things? Just a question. And who wrote this in that there's some vague language in here. And right here about, if located within 400 feet of sewer service, property must connect, parentheses, county health requirement. Well, when was this adopted and when was that? I know anecdotally that you can be near, you're not compelled to be on sewer. It needs a lot of review and a lot of work. And this GSWCC certification rules, well, what are they? Where are they? Brantley's got a good idea, but we need to get this tightened up and things put where it's logical in this. There's a lot of things that contradict themselves here. And I'm not saying this is with any malice or anything like that. And it kind of brings about a different class. I don't mean to use that term. But why exempt a developer applicant from due process or specify advantages for one group with zoning? I mean, why should this one group get less administrative oversight? You see, I like the idea, but let's get rid of those administrative variances. and clean up some of the language and have it. I wouldn't set the date in stone for September 15. I mean, get it done. He'll get it done right and have it before us. So good idea, but nix the administrative variances. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cox. Anyone else wish to speak about this? To address at least one of Ms. Cox's concerns that I think may be a question for many people, this is, at this time anyway, not envisioned as a separate zoning category. We've given it a name that sounds like a zoning, and I think it at a time we've contemplated it being its own zoning classification. But as it stands now, it would be an optional development standard that an owner of property or a developer of property could use. So the property would have to be zoned as either AG or R80. And it would remain, presumably, remain in AG or R80. or R80 zoning. And in exchange for a maximum of one home per five acres overall, would get some relaxed standards. It does strike me that the administrative variance paragraph is pretty broad.

I see your point there.

Last chance, anyone else wish to speak? Okay, we can close this hearing.

Motion to close the public hearing.

Motion by Commissioner Carter to close the hearing. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. All in favor of closing the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. The public hearing is closed. So we're not really looking to take action on this tonight. We would like to act on it a month from now. As Ms. Cox pointed out, I think we do have to. There's some work to be done. But I'd like to at least shoot for that.

There is. So I'd like to actually. Do it a little bit quicker than that. I don't think we've got anything on there that can't be worked out in the next two weeks. So if there is, I guess we'll table it again. But I mean, there are people waiting to elect into this option now. They've been waiting for a substantial amount of time already while we come up with this. So I'll make a motion to table it until September 1st meeting.

We have a motion to table until September 1st. Is there a second? I'll second that. I'm willing to try. So motion by Commissioner Cagle, second by the chair. I agree if we may not be ready then. If we aren't, we aren't. But if we are, good to move on it. Other discussion?

And that would just be a decision at that time, right? Not another?

If we're ready. OK. And just, you know. To be clear, we're trying to do this with a carrot as opposed to a stick. I mean, we'd like in these rural areas to see five acre density instead of two acre density, these most rural parts of the county. One option would be to try to go in and say, OK, we're going to create a new AG5 zoning category. And in these areas, if you're in AG, it's now AG5. We'd probably fight a legal battle there. I don't know if we'd win or lose. It certainly would be a bitter political battle, because we'd be taking away the rights of somebody to develop at a two acre density and tell them, no, you only get five acre density. And some people would fight back about that, and I'd understand that they did. This is an opportunity to head that off and say, if you want to do this, we'll try to make it as easy as possible. So that's the point of it. I'm rambling now.

Any other comments on this before we move on? I would like to just point out that, gentlemen, if y'all would, please get with Ms. Cox and see what she's concerned about, because she's a lot smarter than I am.

The breadth of the administrative variance. Read that one. It's like administrative.

But I mean, does that mean they can't waive stormwater, right? They can't waive higher standards, anything that's like dictated by the state. But I don't have a problem with them. Right. If, say, they want to reduce the front setback by five feet or something, that's not going to be enough to... At least it would probably be worthy of delineating that as much as we can.

So I think that would address her concerns. Good point, though. We want to leave some discretion. Any other comments? We've got to vote. So we've got a motion and a second. All in favor of postponing action on this until September 1st, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, no. The motion carries unanimously, and we will at least attempt to take this up again. We will take it up again and attempt to decide it on September 1st. All right, we have, is it the last one? Mailboxes. One more hearing. This one's on mailboxes. And Brett Buchanan, our chief traffic engineer, is going to guide us through this. We need to open this hearing. Motion to open the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Carter to open the hearing. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Commissioner Ragsdale. All in favor of opening the hearing, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. The public hearing is open. This is another one that I remember. We called them fortress mailboxes in the time. We're coming in to change something that I was involved in 20 years ago, but we'll see how that goes. I think it needs to be changed from what I know. So, Mr. Buchanan, tell us what we got.

All right. Good evening, Chairman and Board of Commissioners. What you have before you is a revision to Section 5.13 of the Zoning Ordinance to... essentially put some better standards on the potential to allow masonry and brick mailbox structures within right away our current ordinance completely prohibits them altogether from the county right away so what we did here is we went in and we defined The composition and they basically went through all the definitions of what these mailbox structures are permissible mailbox structures and then We set forth some exemptions where Alternate mailboxes such as masonry and more fixed object type mailboxes can be allowed. Those exemptions are inside of interior subdivision streets with posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less. There's also an option for them to be located on Cherokee roadways With a speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less with written approval from the Transportation Department Those are ones that would have to be looking at looked at on a case-by-case basis Where you may have a 25 mile an hour roadway that connects two major thoroughfares that sees more than just kind of residential traffic for that particular area and the lots it serves. We also included some administration enforcement that allows the county to remove them if necessary, if there are any mailboxes that are deemed non-conforming. And the effective date on this ordinance was still utilizing that original date of June 8. 1999, when these structures were prohibited, it has just now allowed some exemptions for where it may be allowed.

All right. We do have one person signed up to speak, Mr. Brian Luby.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good evening. I'm Brian Luby. I live at Mark Trail. I'm off of East Cherokee. And I'm here in support of amending Zoning Ordinance 5.13 to permit waivers or exceptions from the prohibition on brick or stone mailbox structures. I'd like to thank Commissioner Carter for bringing this up before the Commission. I've had the opportunity to discuss it with him over the last several months. The purpose of the ordinance is to address concerns with the dangers that these mailbox structures present to motorists. But even back when it was initially adopted, there were questions about applying it broadly to interior streets. I think authorizing waivers, I mean, it serves a great legitimate public purpose. But authorizing waivers in areas where that public purpose isn't necessarily served allows you to balance the interests of property owners. My concern is I don't know if it would I live on a dead-end street at the end of a dead-end street. We're not in a subdivision. And I don't believe there's a posted speed limit. So I'm not sure if we would be covered by those exemptions. So I would ask that if the exemptions wouldn't cover where I live, that that be incorporated. But I would ask for the commission's favorable consideration. Thank you.

Just to clarify, your situation is you're on a street that has a higher than 25 mile per hour speed limit. I don't believe it's posted. It may not be posted. But what if it was more? You're at the dead end. Could there be a process for you to be approved to put in an ICE mailbox?

Correct. For example, we're at the end of a dead end street that's off of a dead end street. So there's no through traffic. So I don't think... The public safety purpose of the ordinance is necessarily served by enforcing it where I live or in my neighborhood.

Might meet the spirit and intent of what we're trying to do here, even if it didn't meet the letter. Sure, sure.

And for example, a lot of the homes, most of the homes, and again, it's 13 or 14 houses on those two streets. And most of the homes already have masonry mailboxes. They're grandfathered in. They were there before the ordinance. But because it's an absolute prohibition, since this ordinance was enacted, I can't bring the curb appeal of our house up to the standards of our neighbors. But again, the ordinance doesn't necessarily serve the public safety purpose where it is, because there's no through traffic. They're very short, dead-end streets. So the speed of motor vehicles is very low. So I would just ask that if it doesn't, as proposed, accommodate my situation, that that be addressed.

Understood.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Nobody else has signed up to speak. If somebody else wishes to, you may. Well, if you do, come on up and speak. Ms. Ursula Cox.

I live at the dead end of McCollum Road, or at the McCollum Gate. I also have the Chattin Road Gate. what was i want didn't quite catch what he was saying of course i have at the moment a non-conforming bread will be right out there and bust me for 500 or mailbox but in the morning about being at the dead end of the road and enforcement i couldn't hear it i'm at a dead end of a road so i intend to get legal, but what was this comment about?

Well, I think he was just saying, you know, if you live at the end of the road, why would you want enforcement on that ordinance, you know, if it's really no danger to anyone? But I think we should bring Brett back up here and maybe clarify something on that.

Well, I'm an outlaw anyway, but, you know, .

What would you think about his situation?

Through the process, I think Commissioner Carter had specifically mentioned that road. There's a lot of times where we get these older roads that may not have a posted sign. Since they don't technically go right on the radar permit and don't have to be approved, we'll routinely post those at like 25 miles an hour or below. If the widths of them are narrow, they'll go in 15 if they're below about 16 feet. So those type of roadways, if a sign is not posted, we'll go ahead and post something of a low speed. We rarely have a road where if nothing's posted that I would want to put 35 miles an hour or anything above a 25 mile an hour residential

speed on so this would be a situation similar to the one where it's outside a subdivision per se where they could come to you and say will you let me put one and you'd say probably okay if it was 25 mile per hour in this case it's not posted you take a look at it and say it's the equivalent of 25 miles per hour

We may end up in those kind of cases we Get with our public works department and actually post a speed limit sign but some of these streets are maybe three to four hundred feet in length and Have probably never had a speed limit sign on them since they've been established Okay, I'm wondering if there's a can we insert a word or two that fixes that You're on my radar

She's armed, Brett. She's armed.

Well, I think exemption number one is interior streets or subdivisions with posted speed limits of 25 miles per hour or less. So if someone wishes to build a mailbox on a street that's not posted, we would go through what Brett just said and probably post the speed limit or give them notification that it's OK to proceed.

Well, condition one, most of the subdivision streets that have been platted for quite a while, the roads were designed to 25 mile an hour standards. So if it's a platted subdivision like that, we know that those roads were all 25, whether or not signs have lived the test of time through those. They're not on somebody's garage basement. or anything like that. But section two would allow us to kind of evaluate each case, case by case basis.

And actually, that number two doesn't say posted speed limit. It says with a speed limit of 25 miles or less. So it doesn't say posted, which I think gives him the flexibility to say that's a 25 mile per hour less roadway. So it doesn't really say posted. Maybe it's OK as is. I think so. All right. Thank you.

OK. Anyone else wish to speak? If not, we haven't closed this hearing yet. I think we need to- Motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Carter to close the hearing. Second. Second. I think I heard Commissioner Cagle first. All in favor of closing the hearing, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. The public hearing is closed.

Mr. Chairman, my business is directly related to this ordinance, so I'm going to abstain from it.

All right. Mr. Cagle is abstaining from this decision, being in the business of building masonry items, including mailboxes. So we still have a question before us. Is there any discussion or a motion?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I just thank Mr. Lobey for bringing this to our attention. It's a 20-year-old ordinance that definitely needed upgrading. Thank you to Brett for doing the work on it. I think it's a good ordinance that will now allow us to address the needs throughout the county. So with that, I make a recommendation we approve this ordinance as presented.

So we have a motion for approval as presented by Commissioner Carter. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Ragsdale. Any discussion now?

I did have one more question for Brett on section D, the four foot versus eight foot distance from the road. If it's a road that's over 25 miles an hour right and doesn't have a curb. And I can think of quite a few roads like that. So where mailboxes are on the street, what do we do in that case? Is it just if it gets reported and becomes an issue, we notify the? The homeowner?

I think the section D you're talking about on location, I think that would apply to any new construction mailbox where we would go out. The preference is to have eight foot. We're kind of OK if it gets down to four. and then anything below that, we kind of have to look at it and issue the same kind of approval from our department. I mean, if you've got less than four of some of these structures, you probably don't have enough room to put that mailbox in if the shoulder's not at least a little price.

Well, yeah, I guess my question was we're not trying to go back to existing homes with a mailbox that's close to the street and try to get them to move it back. Okay, good.

Well, I'll say not on roads that are 25 miles per hour or less. Because there's some that have probably been built on roads that are 35 and above, but they were always prohibited since 1999. OK. Now, you described, I think, earlier.

I could probably think of a few on 35 miles per hour.

I can guarantee you. I can probably get five on my way home.

And those would remain illegal?

It would be considered non-conforming. I don't think we're taking direct action to go remove them, but if for some reason they became an issue, we would have the right to do that. And obviously providing a replacement.

I think you described the situation when this ordinance was originally enacted, that there were some that were required to be removed.

Well, when it was originally done, there was a section A and B that expressly prohibited them. And then in 2001, the board came back and actually put the exemption in to where if they were in place prior to the adoption of the ordinance, then they were OK.

I see.

And we'd have to rely on things like Google Street View and things like that to really know how long somebody's been there. He's a grandfather. Some of them are probably easy to tell based on the time frame of the house and things like that were built. But older ones, it'll be a challenge a little bit.

All right. Thank you. So we still have a motion and a second?

Yes.

So any other discussion? All right, all in favor of the motion to approve this ordinance as presented, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries 4-0 with Commissioner Cagle abstaining. All right, that's all the hearings. It only took us three hours to get here. And they have now public comment. So we have several people signed up. Ursula Cox.

Can you hear me?

Maybe a little closer.

How about that? All right. I want to give a great big thank you to all of you. A few months ago, I discussed this with Commissioner Carter just the other day. You all had a grant or found money to give the animal shelter to have a cheap neuter and spay clinic. In fact, I'm one of the clients. And on the 19th which is tomorrow, they're going to have a unit there to take care of those. And it is cost effective because I hadn't had an animal neutered or spayed in 14 years. And it's hundreds of dollars, hundreds of dollars. And this was for $100. And it's really borne fruit. They've got all the slots for tomorrow. And I think everything's filled up for September 16. And I just want to thank you. That's going to make a big difference. And I hope you do it again whenever you can, or if anybody offers, says, what can I do? I don't know the total amount. I don't know where my agenda is. But I remember seeing that. And then I called down the line, when are you going to have this thing? And I just want to thank you. It's doing a lot of good.

Well, thank you.

Feel free to do it again. Yeah.

You know, you thank us. I got to say, the only thanks you can give us are for hiring a good county manager who hired a good public services director, who hired a good animal shelter director, who hired a good team and built a good shelter there. We had that little to do with it, but thank you.

Good place to live, work, and play.

Some of the folks on here may have signed up for the earlier hearing. Sharon Valenti, I remember that name. I think that was the earlier hearing. Mr. Weaver, Thomas Weaver.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Thomas Weaver. In an approbation of your rules of procedure, I live at 131 Old Marietta Road, and I'm not representing any organization, company, nonprofit, or announced candidate for office. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me to speak. I will be very brief. I know the hour is late. In a recent rendition of the Cherokee Tribune, Our Legal Organ was published in an article this past Friday parroting from the comments that I had made earlier this month that a preliminary estimate from the Atlanta Regional Commission predicts that our population has now crested 300,000 people. You may recall that it was banter that I had made from the dais regarding your obligations to elected officials based on different statutes throughout the Official Code of Georgia annotated that correlate mandatory minimum salaries to population estimates. Fortunately, The underlining official Code of Georgia annotated seemingly purportedly requires that those estimates be delivered to you either by the United States Federal Census Bureau or the Georgia Department of Community Affairs for any independent census that they conduct separate and distinct from the Census Bureau after the publication of each decentennial census. It's just a polite reminder. I just saw it and I had the epiphany that as those numbers go up, the funds that you're going to have to raise in order to continue to support your statutory obligations to elected officials here in Cherokee County is going to go up in a percentage pro rata proportion, which directly correlates back to that population. I would just ask that you keep it in mind. And I just thought that it was just such a bizarre coincidence that no sooner than I finished those remarks that it actually showed up in the front page of our legal organ.

I will say I was at the ARC meeting when those numbers were announced, and I thought of you and your comment when I heard it. It was my first thought. Yep, Thomas told us we were going to be over 300, and we're going to owe some money. So just looking at our county manager's research, I'm not clear. You may be clearer than I am about when that triggers. I'm not sure it triggers off the ARC's estimate. I'm thinking it could have been off the census that's still a few years away.

I'm not in a position to provide you with legal counsel.

Maybe we can research that. Good point to look into. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Let's see. Destiny Labossiere. Did I say it right? Close enough. You wrote it very well. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Labossiere.

Labossiere.

Hi, good evening. My name is Destiny Labossiere. For 13 years, I proudly served Cherokee County as a firefighter and a paramedic. It wasn't just what I did, it's who I was. When someone in this community called 911, I went. I missed holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, and countless nights of sleep because that's what public service demanded, and I've never regretted it. In this very room, I stood before many of you and accepted firefighter of the year twice. Paramedic of the Year, and the Community Service Award, just to name a few. Those awards meant something to me because they represented trust. I didn't just wear the uniform. I invested my life in this county. I served as an explorer advisor, court liaison, educator, paramedic preceptor, department videographer, hiring committee, accreditation committee, and volunteered wherever I was needed. Public service wasn't just what I did, it's who I was. When I stood in this room accepting those awards, I never imagined I'd one day stand here asking why exercising a public right had become financially out of reach. Today, I stand before you not as a firefighter, not as a paramedic, not as an award recipient. I stand here as one citizen exercising a right guaranteed under Georgia's Open Records Act. This experience has been an unbecoming, not of who I am, but of what I once believed about the relationship between a government and the people it serves. I requested public records from the very department I devoted 13 years of my life to serving. The estimate I received was nearly $10,000. Let that sink in. Because if it can happen to me after 13 years of serving this county, it can happen to anyone in this room or this county. I didn't come here first. I have attempted to resolve this through the Georgia Attorney's General Open Government Mediation Program because I believe this could be solved collaboratively. I was recently notified that mediation would not move forward. The next step is Superior Court here in Cherokee County. Let that set in. I do not believe that is what the Georgia Open Records Act was intended to accomplish. Because a citizen who asked for public records is left deciding whether to spend thousands more in litigation simply to learn how their government operates. So tonight I asked this board, if a citizen cannot realistically afford the cost of obtaining public records, how is that meaningfully different from denying access altogether? This is bigger than one records request. It's about whether the rights guaranteed to every citizen remain rights in practice or become privileges reserved for those who can afford them. I gave 13 years of my life serving this county. Tonight, I challenge this county to live up to the same standard of public service you all expected from me. Because public trust is not earned by words. It's earned by transparency. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. LaBassiere. All right, so that brings us to planning and zoning. We have three items. One is a proposed annexation by the city of Holly Springs.

Good evening. So tonight we have case number A042026 from Holly Springs located in Commission District 3. The applicant is BAM Real Estate LLC. This is proposed for a zoning change currently with Cherokee County zoned R40, R20, and GC General Commercial. This is for 5126, 5142 Holly Springs Parkway, 199 Misty Hollow Way, and incorporates four parcels for a total of 6.08 acres. The proposed development is for a commercial development consisting of retail and medical office building, professional office and restaurant building, and a coffee establishment. The future development map is the Wildcat Character Area and its parkway, corridor, and suburban neighborhood for the city of Holly Springs. The public hearing will be held on August 27th, and the city council decision will be made on September 10th. The parcels are wooded and feature residential and other structures. This group of parcels abides River Park Boulevard to the west, and one of the parcels is an undeveloped parcel located in the Hunter's Ridge subdivision. Surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, and industrial. The city of Woodstock abuts River Park Boulevard. According to the 2023 Cherokee County Comprehensive Plan, the future development map indicates Wildcat, which supports employment area consisting of large corporate centers, campuses, and office complexes, and residential is only allowed in mixed-use developments. Here's the zoning of the area, R40, GC, and R20. This shows Wildcat. Here's the proposed site plan that shows the development of retail and medical office site. Along Holly Springs Parkway is proposed a 7,600 square foot, one-story medical office retail building. To the east is a proposed drive-through coffee establishment. And at the rear is proposed a two-story professional office restaurant building consisting of 12,000 square feet on each floor. A detention pond is indicated to the west of this building. According to the application, the site will be developed with shared parking, coordinated internal circulation, and cross-access between uses. There is a proposed driveway at River Park Boulevard And there is a right-in, right-out access point along Holly Springs Parkway. A total of 164 parking spaces are outlined with a total of 12 ADA parking spaces included. A 30-foot landscape strip is proposed along Holly Springs Parkway, and a 40-foot zoning buffer is proposed along the existing residential parcels. Water and sewer has been applied for Cherokee County Water and Sewerage Authority. Was remiss just a moment ago. I moved a little too fast These several parcels right here. I wanted to indicate That they are part of an annexation dating back to 2020 So as staff dug into this annexation We had the following comments This is a unique location in that it borders both the city of Holly Springs and the city of Woodstock. They're located within both growth boundary areas of both cities as well. The subdivision parcel I spoke of earlier is lot 47, but it's an unbuilt lot located in Hunter's Ridge subdivision. There is contiguity for those parcels adjacent, but the interesting thing to note is due to the Holly Springs de-annexation, those parcels that were annexed back in April of 2020 will be coming back into unincorporated Cherokee County per House Bill 1029. So there will be some comments to contiguity that we need to consider. Fire and emergency services had no comment. Transportation had the following comments. River Park Boulevard is maintained by the city of Woodstock, and Holly Springs Parkway is maintained by the city of Holly Springs. There's no right-of-way acquisition noted at this time.

So we got a legal opinion since work session that the continuity question is at the time of the application. So even though we know this is coming in January, the continuity has to be addressed at the time of application, which of course is now. So it may be that if this gets annexed, it may all come out in January, but that makes it makes contiguity a non-issue right now, if that makes sense.

Is it treated like we don't know that it's given?

Well, essentially, yes. That's the way I understand it.

Yes. Unfortunately, the statute, what it says is that contiguity is considered at the time of the application. But of course, that's the statute not knowing our very unique circumstances, right? That's just what the statute says. But the legislation itself says that as of January 1, these are the new boundaries. And so this particular piece, I'm not sure. Is it within what will be carved out in the legislation? Or is it addressed at all in the legislation? Does anyone know?

Yes, these parcels, because of the annexation, going all the way back, I believe, to 2020, Holly Springs did not file their annexations, so they weren't considered valid. And those are part of the ones that will be de-annexed and come back to us.

Including the parcel tonight that we're talking about?

No, not the one we're considering tonight.

OK, it's not affected by the legislation. OK, that was my question. Just trying to keep.

Breast of all of this understood.

So the parcel that we're talking about tonight is not addressed in the litigation. I mean the legislation Okay, so our issue is just the continuity will be removed as of January 1st So Commissioner Carter and I discussed it a bit at the break and and perhaps a notification to the city I think that's still worthwhile despite what the statute says because we know that it's going to then be really a stranded and portion there adjoining, I guess, Woodstock by one side and in the county by the other.

Well, I think from looking at this, we probably don't have a legal objection. But I think we need to start our letter to Holly Springs with this comment that we would request that they not accept this annexation because your continuity includes two parcels that will be returned to the county in January. per legislation. So I think we make that our first comment to them and put it back on them to maybe consider that.

I would change the word to, as you said, it includes, because that implies there could be others. I would say that continuity is based on. Dependent upon. Dependent on. Even better. Continuity is dependent upon two parcels that will be removed from Holly Springs city limits effective January 1.

And then Ms. Long could include this also. I would ask that they maintain and actually enhance the 40-foot buffer along the three parcels of residential along Misty Holloway. That they consider relocating the dumpster from their location on their plan. and that they be cognizant of the flow for the drive-through as how it impacts those neighbors. Looks like they've got the menu boards right against the neighborhood on the bottom right there. Be aware, depending on what that is, be aware that that's against the neighborhood. That's what I see.

Yes, sir, noted.

Sounds good. All right, I guess we have to vote on that, right? So if there's no other comments, then I'd make that recommendation that Ms. Long craft that letter to contain that and send it to Holly Springs.

All right, motion by Commissioner Carter to respond to Holly Springs with comments just discussed. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Ragsdale. Any other discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. And Ms. Long will take care of it. Thank you so much. And just for the record, you know, These two parcels are examples of what may have been inadvertent de-annexations as part of this law. We've offered, but have not really been able to find a way forward to work with Holly Springs. I think we're going to get there, and the legislative delegation, too. Decide what to do with these and so it's really unclear how these will be resolved It's it's conceivable. They will end up remaining in Holly Springs or put back into Holly Springs possibly But at this point they're slated to come out Anyway, thank you. This is gonna really complicate. Yeah. Yeah one more complication All right. Let's see. So we've got another one this one city of ball ground 1583 ball ground highway and

Yes, sir. So this annexation request is from the city of Ball Ground in Commission District 1. And the applicant is Georgia Power. As you all remember, we were before you last month with an annexation request for 1583 Ball Ground Highway. And upon reviewing the request, staff had alerted the city of Ball Ground that there was an island that was created to the northeast section, which is the parcel that Georgia Power owns. So Georgia Power has agreed to be annexed and they're also going to be seeking rezoning. The parcel is currently zoned R80 and they'll be pursuing an LI to match what that proposed development is that's going in up there as well. So this is a two acre parcel. Again, no development. It will continue as its current use as Georgia Power. Future development map is neighborhood living, and then they have the public hearing scheduled for October 8th for that city council decision on November 12th. So just as a quick reminder, this is the location of the parcel, and the proposed development was coming along these two parcels here along Ball Ground Highway. Currently zoned R80, and we'll be going into LI, light industrial. You can see it's surrounded by the city as well. And there's their survey of their property. Staff really have no comments.

So I guess, Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we instruct staff to notify the city of Ball Ground that we have no objection to the annexation.

All right. That's a motion? Yes, sir. Motion by Commissioner Cagle to respond with no objection to the annexation. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you for the resolution here. All right. We got one. Oh, yeah. This one is not an annexation. This is a request to hear an appeal of a ZBA decision. Ms. Stallings will take over for this one. involving the tree ordinance.

Yes, we quickly whipped up a few slides between the work session. So the appeal is of a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning a variance application from May. The applicant for the appeal is Parkeshoff, representing SDP Acquisitions. The location is 5089 Old Alabama Road. It's in Commission District 4. Essentially, the variance case, they requested to reduce the specimen recompense to zero. This is the overall site. The rezoning took place on pretty much all the property except for the Yanmar building, the Evo Center here. And this is the variance exhibit that was in their original application. You'll notice that there are a series of red areas. They were also asking for buffer encroachments in those red areas. Those are all zoning buffers that are required.

But those aren't part of the request for us tonight.

Not for the appeal. But I just wanted you to kind of get a sense of the whole variance application. And then this is a tree preservation plan that they put together. And it shows you where those specimen trees are located.

Well, those appear to be savable, but they're taking them out anyway?

Most of them are. Most of the ones in the stream buffer, but some of them that are on the periphery in those buffer variance areas are affected.

OK.

So what happened at the July ZBA meeting is that the ZBA discussed the requirements, talking about tree replacement, tree fund contributions versus the tree bank. Eventually, they came to the decision to approve this variance with the condition that the recompense be reduced down to 25% of what was required. And that could be paid to the tree replacement fund.

What was the total recompense?

There's kind of differing opinions on what that amount was. The applicant said it was over a million dollars. The arborist, he didn't feel like it was that expensive, but he didn't have the three quotes that are usually required to determine what the tree replacement fund contribution would be.

What's our timeline, if I were to table this, what's our timeline for making a decision about an appeal? Do we have time to table this one meeting, or does that time run out? 30 days from today. OK. Well, because the reason I'm saying that is at the ZBA meeting, I think the applicant gave a number. In their request here, it was a different number. We feel it's an even lower number. So I'd like to know what that number is before we have the whole public hearing and go through that process. So if we can determine that they've calculated a number that's too high, and they say, oh, that's great. I like that number. Then we don't have to go through the whole process, if that makes sense. So if we have the time, legally, to do that. Six months is fine. No, I think since there's multiple numbers floating out, we need to know what that number is before we go through this whole process. Because if we felt it was higher, that would be one thing. I think we feel that it's lower than what they've calculated. So if that's the case, then this may be easier to get through than having a hearing and all that. So if we have time, I would make that motion that we table this until... 30 days would be second meeting in September? Okay.

All right, motion by Commissioner Ragsdale to table this item till our second September meeting, September 15th. Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. We will take the item up September 15th. All right, thank you. We are to consent agenda. Mr. Morton. You finally get your chance. Don't blow it.

Well, my watch just told me it's my bedtime, so.

All right, good evening. I've got six items for you to consider under consent agenda this evening. First will be to consider a request from the Information Technology Department to surplus and dispose of several computers, monitors, and miscellaneous equipment that has reached useful life. Second item is to consider a request from the district attorney to accept a total of $3,500 from the US Secret Service for cost reimbursement of an assigned joint operations task member. Item 3 is to consider a request from the staff senior council for approval of countywide administrative policy that would establish a process and guidelines for accepting event sponsorships for county hosted events. Item 4 is going to be eliminated. Item 5 is to consider a request to hold a public hearing on September 15, 2026 to consider and update zoning ordinance article 7 regarding livestock and mobile sawmills and associated definitions in article 4. Item six is to consider a request to hold a public hearing on September 15th of 2026 to consider and update zoning ordinance article 14 regarding administration. And item seven, last item under consent, is to consider a request to hold a public hearing on September 15th of 2026 to consider an update to article two of the code of ordinances regarding consumer fireworks.

Any questions, comments, or a motion on the consent agenda? Motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion by Commissioner Cagle to approve the consent agenda. Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. Any discussion now? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously.

The consent agenda is approved. I thank you. Under the county manager portion, I've got 12 items for you to consider this evening, with the first being to consider a request from the Information Technology Department with the purchase of solution and licenses for a countywide network access control in total amount of $75,490.80 for a three-year term. To maximize cost efficiency, the IT department is recommending securing a three-year agreement for network access control. Network access control acts as a gatekeeper for the entire network and continuously inspects and verifies that every device trying to connect for both wired and wireless devices to the county's network. The IT department requested quotes from three vendors, with this being the lowest price quote. This is a budgeted item in the IT department's fiscal year 2026 budget.

Motion to approve 12.1.

Motion by Commissioner Ragsdale for approval. Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and this purchase of county-wide network access control software is approved.

Thank you. Second item is to consider a request from the marshal's office for a five-year agreement with Axon Enterprises for purchase of replacement tasers in the amount of $8,879.39 for fiscal year 2026, and the amount of $25,528.24 for subsequent years, totaling $110,992.35 over the term of the agreement. The Marshal's Office is requesting to replace its aging taser units, which have reached their useful life. The contract would be for the purchase of 16 tasers, accessories, and training for a five-year period. Funds for this are included in the Marshal's Office 2026 annual budget and will be included in subsequent annual budgets. Motion to approve 12.2.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Cagle. Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously, and this purchase of replacement tasers from Axon for the Marshal's Office is approved.

Aye, thank you. Third item is to consider a request from the Splasser Roadway Department for task order CD-20 under the Professional Services Agreement and Kimley-Horn to perform traffic engineering and concept development work for the Fate Conn Road at Ball Ground Highway intersection improvement project in the amount of $38,170. During the 2025 TSPAS referendum, this project is on that project list, and the need to improve that intersection was identified. The intersection geometry and site distance do not meet current standards, as well as there are some safety issues with numerous crashes occurring at or near the intersection. Per this task order, the consultant will complete a traffic analysis and a concept study to evaluate potential alternates to improve the intersection and improve subsequent engineering and design activities. Those would be done under a separate RFP, which would be specified once this task order is completed. This project is funded by TSPLOST. Motion to approve 12.3.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Cagle. Second. Second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay? The motion carries unanimously. And this agreement with Kimberley Horne for engineering concept development for Fatecon Road at Ball Ground Highway intersection is approved.

Thank you. Item four is to consider requesting the sponsor of the Department for Task Order CD-21 under the professional services agreement with Atlas Technical Consultants. to perform right-of-way appraisal services for the State Route 92 at Trickham Road intersection improvement project in the amount of $71,200. This intersection improvement includes the addition of left turn lane, right turn lane, and through lane capacity at the intersection. It is 80% funded by federal funds through the Georgia DOT for right-of-way acquisition and construction. Per this task order, the appraisals would be updated for six parcels that are needed for the ongoing condonation proceedings on this project. This project is funded 80% by GDOT and 20% by the 2020 Forest Lost Roadway Program.

Motion to approve 12.4. Motion for approval by Commissioner Weatherby. Second. Second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. And this right-of-way appraisal services agreement with Atlas Technical Consultants is approved.

I thank you. Item 5 is to consider a request from the Splaster Road Department for an agreement with Georgia Power Company to allow encroachments into an existing utility easement for construction of a technology-rich parkway, phase 4, on the airport road spur project. The technology parkway project will relocate Airport Road and make possible the extension of the runway at the Cherokee County Regional Airport. Georgia Power Company maintains a series of high voltage power lines that are within a 200 foot wide easement that run parallel to the project corridor. In order to secure access for the construction contractor, relocate and extend utilities, Georgia Power requires the county to execute an agreement that outlines the county's responsibilities and expectations.

Motion to approve 12.5.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Ragsdale. Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and this right-of-way encroachment agreement with Georgia Power is approved.

I thank you. Item six is to consider a request from Katz Transit for purchase of office furniture for the new Katz Administration Building from Office Creations Incorporated under state of Georgia contract in the amount of $149,763.70. The new Katz Administration Building off of Univeta Road is scheduled to be completed by mid-November of this year. All CATS operations will be relocated to that facility. The existing furniture in the existing office is old and will not survive the move. So CATS is proposing to purchase new furniture from Office Creations. who is the authorized distributor under the State of Georgia contract. Once again, this project is funded by 80% FTA funds and 20% Georgia Transit Trust Fund funds. The Georgia Trust Fund funds will serve as the county's required local match for this project. That is where it's proposed to purchase this office furniture from.

Just confirming, this furniture purchase, it falls under these funds from? Yes. Correct. And state? Yes. No local dollars involved.

No local dollars in this project. We congratulate staff for getting that $1 million from the Georgia Transit Trust Fund.

Motion to approve 12.6. Motion for approval by Commissioner Carter. Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. Any discussion? All in favor, please.

I would say this moved very quickly. I feel like we just broke ground on that a month ago. I know. It seems like. I remember it was cold, but it doesn't seem that long ago.

It was winter we did that. Yeah, but time flies, doesn't it? It was February or March.

Still, that's quick.

Any other comments? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously, and this furniture purchased from Office Creations for the Katz Building is approved.

Thank you. Item seven is to consider a request from Recreation and Parks for a facility use agreement with 112 Events, LLC for a drive-through Christmas light show at Cherokee Veterans Park for a term of two years with an option for three consecutive one-year terms subject to agreement by both parties. For the past several years, 112 Events has worked with our recreation parks for a drive-through Christmas light show at Veterans Park. That previous contract has expired. Staff has now renegotiated the terms of the agreement to include some more restrictive move-in and move-out dates and increased fees that are paid to the county. Estimated revenues for fiscal year 2027 will be $15,000.

Motion to approve 12.7. Motion for approval by Commissioner Carter. Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. And this agreement with 112 events for the Christmas light show at Veterans Park is approved.

I thank you. Item 8 is to consider a request from the Community Development Agency for renewal of the CityView software maintenance agreement in the amount of $97,683.14 for an additional one year term. CityView is the enterprise software system that Community Development Agency and the Fire Marshal's Office use for tracking plan reviews, permits, inspections, and business licenses, and has been used by the county since 2003. It allows for the reduction of manual processes by increasing citizens' self-service functions, including real-time updates to building inspection and plan review results. This cost is 6% higher than the 25-26 rate, but the cost has been anticipated and included in Development Services Center 2027 budget. Motion to approve 12.9.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Cagle. Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion passes unanimously, and this renewal of CityView software is approved.

I thank you. Item nine is to consider a request from Recreation and Parks for the purchase of a towable boom lift from Aerial Titan in the amount of $65,300. The Recreation and Parks is requesting to purchase this towable boom to support maintenance and operational activities that require elevated access. Staff is proposing to purchase a 2022 model in the amount of $65,300. That unit is located in Cartersville. For comparison, they looked at some other used models that range from $67,000 to $83,000. The proposed purchase of a used model compared to a brand new model would be $99,850. So staff is proposing to purchase the slightly used model for a $34,550 savings and use lost funds to do that.

Motion to approve 12.9. Motion for approval by Commissioner Weatherby. Second. Second by Commissioner Cagle. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously, and this purchase of a towable boom lift from Aerial Titans is approved.

I thank you. Item 10 is to consider a request from property management for a service agreement with Woods Brothers Roofing and Construction LLC for the roof replacement at the tax commissioner's office at 195 Town Lake Parkway in a total amount of $49,375. The roof at the tax commissioner's office is in need of replacement. Property management solicited a competitive quote from four vendors for the project. And those prices range from a low of $49,375 to a high of $73,100. That Woods Brothers. quote was the lowest quote, and they have successfully completed two previous roof replacement projects for the county at both the Union Hill Community Center and Historic Courthouse. This will be a SPLOST-funded project. Motion to approve 12.10.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Cagle.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Carter. Any discussion?

No, but I would like to point out that I do appreciate staff really doing some due diligence on this and making sure that somebody who was saying that they weren't a Cherokee County-based company didn't get, for somebody saying that they were a Cherokee County-based company but couldn't prove it, didn't get the job, that kind of defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to do using local businesses. So thank you, staff, for that.

All right. Good deal. Any other comments? We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. The motion carries unanimously. And this agreement with the Woods Brothers Roofing for replacement of the Woodstock Tax Commissioner's office is approved.

I thank you. Item 11 is to consider a request from the Splass Roadway Department for amendment 2 to the construction agreement for the 2026 resurfacing project phase 1 with Stumet Construction and Development LLC for incorporating an additional roadway for resurfacing in the total amount of $214,161. Phase one of the 2026 resurfacing project consists of resurfacing approximately 29.27 miles of roadways. For this project, the county again partners with the cities of Canton and Woodstock for a joint project. Phase one was awarded to summer construction back in April of this year. This amendment adds resurfacing of Bowling Park Road from Marietta Highway to the second wastewater plant entrance and a parking lot. At the request of the city of Canton cost of this amendment will be funded by the city of Canton through an forthcoming IGA revision Motion to approve twelve point eleven motion for approval by Commissioner Ragsdale second by Commissioner Weatherby any discussion

All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. And this amendment with the 2026 resurfacing project phase one with summit construction is approved.

I thank you. And then the last item for you this evening, item 12, is to consider amendment two to the intergovernmental agreement with the city of Canton to provide resurfacing road repairs for various roads. Per this IGA amendment, the city and county agree to continue their performance on the original agreement. However, the scope of services have been mended to state that city requests additional roads to be paved That would be the bowling park road from area to highway to the second way through plant entrance and the parking lot and in and then the city also will reimburse the county for the additional work actually completed estimated amount to be two hundred fourteen thousand one hundred sixty one dollars The city of Canton is scheduled to consider this amendment at their meeting of August 20th of 2026 motion approved 12.1 to

Motion for approval by Commissioner Cagle. Second. Second by Commissioner Weatherby. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously, and this amendment to the IGA with Canton for the road resurfacing contract is approved. I thank you. That concludes my portion of the agenda. All right. And we're done in under four hours.

Anything else to come before the board? No, I just want to point out that Jeff actually made good on his time, so good job. Thank you. All right, yeah, he sped us up at the end.

Thank you for that. All right, is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Motion by Commissioner Cagle for adjournment.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Carter. All in favor of adjournment, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. We are adjourned.