Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This May the 19th, 2026 Board of Aldermen meeting is hereby called to order. I'd like to begin by acknowledging our Pastor Darrell Pettis of Mount Pisgah Baptist Church to do our invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, which I will do. Please stand.

Great evening, Mayor, Board of Aldermen, all the citizens, and everybody that's present. Psalms 133 and verse 1 just simply says, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. The word of the Lord, let us pray. Oh, holy God, our father, we thank you for this amazing day. We thank you for all of the beauty that it entails. We thank you for every blessing that you've given to our lives. And father, we appreciate you tonight for your goodness and your grace. and as we begin our meeting tonight we pray for your divine guidance that it would lead and guide us to be great stewards over everything that you've placed into our hands and lord i thank you now for the angelic hosts that continue to guard our city and i thank you for all of our leadership and i pray that this day tonight that you would give us Everything that we need to continue to lead this place of residence, this place of worship, and this place of love and living to the next dimension. And we give you glory and honor and every believer said together, amen.

Amen. Thank you, Pastor. Salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic on which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you be seated. Thank you pastor pettis. Mister would you conduct roll call.

Here.

Six members present, so a quorum is established. Just as a reminder, board members, those of us that have microphones, board and staff, the light should be on green when we're speaking so the audience can hear what we're saying. It should be on green when we're speaking and red when we're not speaking. And anyone that comes up tonight during the public comment section, if you come up during the public comment section, please complete one of the blue square cards on the table between me and the first row. Complete that card and give it to the clerk to my right, your left. So she'll be able to record who spoke in public comments And if you would when you come forward give your name and address so she can record that in the minutes of the meeting tonight Thank you Board you have before you the regular meeting minutes of our May the 5th record called meeting any questions comments or motions on those meeting minutes I College motion while a second in discussion. All in favor. Motion carries. I'm staying on the gamma sustained he was out that meeting I believe consider Jim that you have that before you board items one through 27 administrative in nature. Any questions on those items or comments or motions moved to approve. Most to prove again, it's second by Dickerson in discussion. All in favor. All opposed. Motion carries continue down the agenda. First I don't plan to commission old business. This is a public hearing for consideration of application to amend the project text for Trinity Park plan development submitted by a lot of Boston Nasser on behalf of Moheed Nasser property owner. The 16.2 one plus or minus acres subject property is on P. U. D. plan unit development and is located at the Southwest corner of highway 305 and church road known as 89 61 church road. The request is to add medical cannabis as a permitted use within area seven of the PUD. A public hearing date for today was set on April the 21st, 2026. Dr. Song, staff report, please.

Thank you, Mayor Adman. Before you, it's a request to consider amendment to the project tax for Trinity Park subdivision. The entire subdivision is over 16.2 acres, as the mayor read. This particular application concerns lot one in area seven, but specifically unit 400 of this building at the center. So can I give you an orientation in the city? This is Highway 305, running north-south. This is Church Road East. Right at that intersection, we're looking at the southwest corner. That's where you have the property. Somewhat opposite the ball fields, you have a CVS pharmacy across the street and a convenience store with four palms at the other quadrant of that intersection. The request is to amend the project tax for Trinity Park subdivision, as I did mention, and add Medica Cannabis Dispensary at 8961 Churchill Road, East Unit 400, being on Lot 1 of Area 7 of that subdivision. This is not to add medical cannabis to the entire subdivision, so to speak, or to the entire lot one, or to the entire area seven, or even on anywhere in building 8961. This is very precise to that unit, unit 400. The reason being, state law requires that medical cannabis dispensaries be located a minimum 1,000 feet measured from the main point of entry into where the medical cannabis dispensary would be to the nearest protected property line of a number of protected uses, three of them being childcare facilities, schools, and churches. There is a church, Laberhaven Baptist Church, to the south of the subject property. These, based on this state law requirement, the surveyor survey this particular site and determine that from the main point of entry, from that unit 400, to the property line of the nearest protected use, being La Baie Heaven Baptist Church, will be a distance of 1,001.47 feet. Still requires that it be a minimum 1,000. If the application, for example, applied to the entire building, part of the building will not meet that 1,000 feet separation distance. That's why it's very precise at that particular unit. The zoning ordinance provides a number of criteria for evaluating these amendments to project tax for uses that, by their very nature, are associated with planned developments in the C4, but which are also specific in the type of uses that are permitted in the sub-districts to those in the neighborhood commercial district. One of them, we have to look at a prospective medical cannabis use, the prospective use. Does it align with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and state law, so to speak? In this particular case, it meets the minimum 1,000 feet separation distance from the nearest protected use, being the church in this case. Second is for the board to examine whether the modifications are consistent with the development standards and criteria for planned unit development. The development standards in this case being such issues as setbacks, board regulations, parking requirements. None of those will be affected by the use of that particular unit for a medical cannabis dispensary. With respect to criteria for PERTs, or planned unit developments, the zoning ordinance provides that a purpose, or one purpose of the PERT is to ensure that it aligns with the comprehensive plan of the city. This map to the left indicates this is the cannabis dispensary map, an area of the cannabis dispensary map of the city of Olive Branch. This is Church Road, this is Highway 305. These buffer areas you see around, so you have these yellow areas, that is where you have a protected use. So across the city, we have this map, kind of a dispensary map. In this particular case, this yellow area, this would be La Belle Heaven Baptist Church. This is another church, this is another church. Everywhere you have a yellow spot in this particular map, that is where you have a protected use. And the buffer area surrounding it, that is a minimum 1,000 feet. That's a minimum 1,000 feet. So if we look at The particular unit 400, as I did mention, it is outside of the minimum 1,000 feet buffer from La Baie Heaven Baptist Church at a point of entry. So you're looking at it at a point of entry from the door. The comprehensive plan of the city designates the subject property. By subject property here, I would narrow it down to that unit 400. The subject property is designated in the comprehensive plan of the city as neighborhood commercial. Neighborhood commercial uses from the comprehensive plan are also correlated with the neighborhood commercial district in the zoning ordinance. The city zoning ordinance, medical cannabis dispensaries are permitted by right, essentially. So if this property were not a planned development district, if this was a conventional C1 neighborhood commercial district, we would not even be having this hearing. The applicant will be permitted to have medical cannabis dispensary there by right. Of course, subject to the minimum separation distance from protected uses and every other state law requirement. Another criteria is for the board to examine what is the general intent and purpose of that particular PUD and to assess whether the proposed amendment aligns with that intent and the permitted uses. The Trinity Park PUD as a whole was intended to be mainly horizontal mixed use, one would say, in the sense that it had areas that were designated for residential development and an area that was two main areas, area three really, area eight and area seven, with an office district that were intended for commercial development. This is in area seven that was designated for neighborhood scale commercial development. With regard to the permitted uses, the general statement in the project text reads, the purpose of this general statement is to set forth a conceptual vision of Trinity Park as depicted on the master plan illustration. The actual permitted uses Dimensional regulations, access and circulation, et cetera, for the project shall be governed by the outline plan. So the uses will be governed by the outline plan. They will be governed by the conditions of approval in the project text itself and other conditions of approval that the board imposed when Trinity Park PUD was approved and the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. staff did not find, and the Planning Commission in its review did not find that the cannabis, the medical cannabis dispensary proposed before you today would be out of line with any of these three main elements, namely The outline plan, because in the outline plan, this is area seven, and area seven is allocated for neighborhood scale commercial development. The conditions of approval and the declaration of covenants restrict conditions and restrictions. With regard to compatibility with the surrounding area, To the north, there's a general, lot one of area seven, unit 400 being at this precise location. To the north of this side is a city park, there's a pharmacy. To the northeast, you have a liquor store there with convenience store with four pumps. On the side itself there's a vape shop. Further to the south you've got this storage facility and of course you've got a church, you've got residential. Further to the east, further to the west and residential further to the south. So the general character of this intersection is kind of has different uses. It's not all residential, it's not all commercial, but it's mainly commercial. If you look at that particular intersection itself, it's principally commercial. And the uses that are at that intersection are generally the sort of uses that will be permitted in either the neighborhood scale all the arterial commercial or highway corridors in the city. For example, if you look on Goodman Road, which is a highway corridor, just as 305 is a highway corridor, you've got convenience stores with fuel pumps, you've got pharmacies and so on. Unique and kind of special about this is, of course, the presence of the city park. That is different from what you may have in other areas. Except, of course, that old Goodman Road, which is also an arterial road in the city, has got another city park adjoining it. In terms of adequate infrastructure, Highway 305 is an arterial road. The proposed medical cannabis dispensary will not add any traffic of a significant amount out of that particular site that Highway 305 or Church Road cannot handle. The units there, even if it were occupied by any other restaurant, it would generate more traffic. If you put a restaurant in that unit, it would generate far more traffic than a medical cannabis dispensary could. Other infrastructures such as water, sewer, those are already available to this particular site. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at its meeting on April 14, 2026. It initially voted three votes to three, with hesitation by the seven member who was attempting to abstain, but a member eventually did cast a favorable vote resulting in a motion passing 4-3 to recommend that the Board of Adamant approve the amendment to the project tax for Trinity Park PUD to allow medical cannabis dispensary as a use by right exclusively at 8961 Church Road, East Unit 400, being on Lot 1 of Area 7 of this PUD. This recommendation was based on the following four main findings, that a proposed amendment would be consistent with the intent and purpose of Trinity Park PUD, specifically Area 7. The comprehensive plan designates this area as a neighborhood commensure, and the inclusion of medical cannabis dispensary as a permitted use is compatible with that designation. Given that the arterial classification of Highway 305, the addition of a medical cannabis dispensary as a use-by-ride is not expected to generate inadequate street capacity or other traffic impact that the area will not be able to handle. The proposed use will not overburden public utilities, drainage systems, or other community facilities, including search weeks that may be posed in terms of fire and flood. The property is not in a floodplain. And lastly, the location of medical cannabis dispensary will meet the minimum 1,000 feet separation from the three legally protected uses, namely a church, a school, and daycare facility in that particular area. That concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Saul. Board, any questions on this staff report? Hearing none from the board before open public comments. I've got a couple things I'd like to to share with the board. An applicant put up I want to make sure that you want to go at this point or do you want to. But at what point would you like to to speak at this point are Okay. I want to make sure that Mr. Nassar is up close enough where he can hear. Can you hear me? I want to make sure. Why don't you all come on to the front row here. I just have a couple things to welcome back, Mr. Nassar. Congratulations on your wedding. All right. I met with you and I want to make sure you could hear. I met with you to let you know that I have concerns about the application. I was very candid with you about that. And I'll share with the board a couple of things before the applicant speaks and before the public comments begin. The legislature is very clear in their statute to the spirit and intent of the law was clear that dispensaries really should not be around locations centered on children. The statute specified churches, daycare centers, schools, and childcare facilities. So your job board is to apply the principle of real life to this statute. I have made a formal request of our local delegation when they go back in session in 2007, which is a ways off that they would add parks and recreational facilities to the statute to require dispensaries to be at least a thousand feet away from those locations uh... is statues not that old it hasn't been opened back up i don't think since it was approved and but that's one of things i'd like to see go in that statute uh... point out that our soccer fields are very close to this area all weeknights in the fall we have sixteen games a night which is thirty two teams four hundred fifteen children at parents grandparents of spectators a thousand people on any given weeknight on the soccer field On Saturdays we have 56 teams play in which could consist of 725 children parents grandparents and family approximately 1500 people located at the soccer fields across from this facility now obviously the statute does not state public parks that's very clear in the statute, but hopefully it will be added. But I point to a couple of things. I look at the existing Trinity Park PUD that was approved September 26, 2005. Every time a new facility goes up, most people get on social media and say, well, the mayor and board just allowed this new facility to come up. They don't realize this was approved as a planned development facility. 21 years ago it's just coming today because our populations where it is today, but I point to counsel you to section to all of this to to section to paragraph F in the project text which was approved by the board 21 years ago states the community will be developed the community be in Trinity Park strip mall the community will be developed so that it not only preserves and protects but also should enhance the surrounding property board i don't think a medical cannabis dispensary enhances the property trinity park will reflect sensitivity to the adjacent land uses and encourage the highest quality development in the adjacent properties again that's not the highest quality development paragraph thirty in the section to the put states the development is located where necessary infrastructure is available or can be economically provided keep on emphasis on and provide an area that will minimize conflict between existing and proposed land uses what is obvious with the half room full of people the existing stakeholders at the church in the subdivision nearby there they do have concern so conflict exist totally diametrically opposite of what was approved on and when it was approved they stated in writing that they would make sure that they would minimize conflict between existing and proposed land uses So I do want to share that with you as you come to your decision point a little bit later in the meeting and ask you to consider that.

Thank you, Mayor. It's good to see you all again. For the record, my name is Lauren Ward. I'm an attorney at Daniel Coker, Horton & Bell in Oxford, Mississippi. My business address is 265 North Lamar Boulevard, Suite R. Good evening. So I'm here representing the applicant on this application. I appreciate the mayor's comments and I'll probably incorporate our responses to those comments within my presentation. But I first wanted to remind all of us why we're here. We're not here to approve a cannabis facility right now. We're not here to approve a site plan, a business plan, an actual business going into that building. The application is requesting a change to the project text to add a cannabis dispensary as a permitted use. This facility, if one does go into this location, this suite 400, will have other hoops to jump through. There are stringent permitting guidelines at both the state and local levels. You all have done a great job to ensure that there are those guidelines within your own ordinance. And they almost mirror what's going on at the state. And when we talk about this permitting process, we're talking about thousands of dollars. These are people who are serious about the business that they're putting into the location. There are security plans. There are requirements with both the Department of Revenue and the Department of Health and Safety within the state of Mississippi. So I do want to emphasize that that's what we're here for today. Nobody's asking you to say, yes, put that dispensary right there right now. They're asking for the ability to put one there potentially in the future after they've satisfied the permitting requirements that they have to go through. to make that happen. And so with that in mind, that's where our presentation centers. I want to clarify for you, staff did a really good job presenting the application. We don't disagree with anything that was provided. So I would incorporate their comments into my presentation and I will try not to repeat too much of the same arguments or the same provisions. That's kind of my job. But I did want to clarify for y'all and For the benefit, I thought you all might need an updated survey in front of you. So if it's okay if I approach? I'm going to give staff a copy too, so I'll circle around. So as these are coming across to you, there's no surprise the imagery has not changed. A big question I got after our last presentation at the Planning Commission is, wow, there's an actual building there, but there's not a building in the picture. So let me clarify that for you. I spoke with the engineer who did this survey and whose stamp is on it. And he clarified to me that the AutoCAD system that they use has not updated to the extent that includes the most current aerial imagery for this location. So that's why I don't see the physical building in the picture. However, what was confirmed is that that diagram of the building you see, it's been pulled up on the screens as well, That is actually where those building walls exist. They did field work to conduct this survey. They did field work to conduct the measurements. So they were actually out there. This isn't someone on the computer just dot to dot drawing. They were there in the field to make those measurements. So I want to assure you, I know that we're looking at a survey that is one and a half feet over the state requirement. I get it. I wish it was more. But that's why we're here. And that's why we have this survey in front of you. And so the only other change you'll see on that survey is that the engineer has a more extensive certification statement. What I will tell you is that mirrors what's in the state regulations for this statute on the thousand foot distance. So I want to assure you that it mirrors the requirements, and they're very specific. These measurements have to be straight line measurements, so point to point. They have to be taken from the main point of entry of the cannabis dispensary or the proposed location. when that location has one door it's from the midline of the single door this location has two doors so the measurement is taken from where those dual doors abut each other where they meet up and that's why that certification is more extensive i wanted to be clear with you all it mirrors what's required by the statute point of entry to the nearest boundary line of the protected use and that protected use here is of course the church So I wanted to assure you that the measurement taken is per statute. It's the result of field work. It's not someone sitting on a computer and guesstimating. That is what it is. So it does meet that statutory minimum of 1,000 feet. So that was the clarification I wanted to offer you there on the physical location that we're looking at, that's suite 400. Aside from that, as staff told you, this PUD was designed with neighborhood commercial uses in mind. That's what it is in the comprehensive plan. It's what it is by its uses. So the next material I want to provide you, it's more of a reference guide. I almost want to say, may I approach the bench, but... So the materials that are coming to you now, really what I'm asking you to refer to is that first page. There's a three-column chart. The chart on the left-hand side reflects the permitted uses that are already allowed in this PUD. So that's project text, Area 7 for this Trinity Park development. Those are the permitted uses that already exist under the project text that was approved back in 2005. And that middle column shows you which of those uses are in line with current office district uses per all of branches zoning ordinance. So that's where those line up. I know it's only a handful there. But then when you go to the final column, you see what uses line up with permitted uses in a C-1 neighborhood commercial district. And it's every single one of them. I will put the asterisk there for gas stations, convenience stores. We all know that they have their own special realm. But every other use is permitted already in a neighborhood commercial district. So it really tells you that this PUD, this Area 7 of Trinity Park, was designed with a neighborhood commercial feel in mind. And as you already know and as staff has already told you, cannabis dispensaries have already been added as a permitted use in Olive Branch's office and neighborhood commercial districts. So adding it to this project text is not only in line with the zoning ordinance, it's in line with the comprehensive plan, which also lists this area as a neighborhood commercial. So I wanted to make sure those points were clear before I launch into the other kind of specifics that we have to talk about here. As you were told earlier tonight, there's really no effect on traffic here. This building that the suite is located in already exists. It's on a busy intersection, I'll give you that. But the traffic flow is enough. And this is not a high traffic use. You're talking about often a single visitor use or visit. This is one person walking in. They have to provide a medical cannabis card before they can even enter the facility. This isn't groups of people going at a time like you would see at a restaurant. It's not a lot of cars lined up in a drive-through. So it's kind of... It's even a less use than what's already permitted for this portion of the PUD. So traffic should not be a consideration that affects your decision tonight. I would also tell you there's the consideration of the parks. I understand that there is one located across the street. And what I would tell you is that there's no showing that this particular use is going to have effect on anybody at those parks. As I told you, this is a medical cannabis dispensary. This would be someone having to go in with a card in hand and a prescription. This is not everybody walking in off the street and getting whatever they want. I had to have it explained to me because I've never been in one of these facilities. But you walk in the first set of doors and you're met with security. And that security has to require that your identification is verified before you make it into the next set of doors into the location. And once you're in the location, you are only handed product by someone working there. It's not up on shelves for you to grab at will. Once you've made your decision about what to purchase, you go to the register, and there is a actual list that has to be filled out who you are what you're buying what the quantity is it's a well-tracked system so i don't want anybody to think about this as a high volume use lots of people going in and having a burden on your public parks that are right across the street and when you want to think about that in context there's already a pharmacy located right next to that park they also fill prescriptions for other drugs and i'm sure that we don't want around our children and then when you go directly across highway 305 you also have a liquor store that's available to anybody over the age of 21. so that's not got to have your medical marijuana card that's walk on in show me your id purchase and you can walk right across the street so i just want to clarify that while i understand the concern it definitely is not a proven burden on these facilities based on this use alone And so with that in mind, we're talking about the burden on the parks. There's no showing that this is actually a burden on any of your fire protection utilities. This is a point of retail. They're not processing the product. They're not growing it. It already comes prepackaged and sealed in a state kind of run situation already to this cannabis dispensary. So it wouldn't have a heightened effect on any fire needs there. I know there was talk at the last planning commission meeting about whether or not this would have effect on crime and the utility of your police department. That is an important consideration. But I wanted the hard facts. I am a I'm a facts kind of person. So I'm going to give you another document in a second. I'm sure you're loving that you're getting a lot of paper tonight. But what I would tell you is after the planning commission meeting, I put in a public records request for the Olive Branch Police Department records. And you all have six existing cannabis dispensary locations within the city limits. So what I requested, and you'll see here in front of you, are any incident logs, incident reports, call logs for those six locations from January 1st of 2025 and through about mid-April this year, the date I made the request. And I'm going to pass these out, but I'll walk you through what your hand is. Okay, so you've got two documents that are being passed down. The first is a little bit thicker, so that is the result of the public records request that I sent in. You will see in front of you an Exhibit A for each of the dispensary locations. That was my ability to provide the exact address to your police department to get the records in response. You'll notice that behind those exhibit A's, there's call logs for the locations. I want to clarify that those call logs are for the entire overall address. A lot of these dispensaries are suites or units in an overall development. So those call records go for the overall address. Most of them are unrelated to the suites at issue. And then for some of them, you will see them listed as a traffic stop or a motor vehicle accident. That was just the closest address for the police officer to use at that time. will notice there's nothing for the can of bloom location there were no records that were provided in response there were no call logs associated with the address but i want to highlight this i was provided with one incident report in relation to all six facilities for a nearly 16 month period and that was at the far and daughter location they had a shoplifting incident back in july of 2025. And so you'll see the incident report there. I had your staff at the police department clarify for me. That was the only incident report associated with these specific dispensary locations for that time period. So I think we can talk about what crime could happen, what could come here. But you guys actually have hard figures. You have a reality. And so the second document I gave you was pulled from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. Olive Branch, gratefully, reports their crime figures to the state. And so I was able to pull those crime figures for 2025 and 2026. And if you look at the larceny figures for 2025, it's 383 larceny events. One was from a cannabis dispensary. That's less than a tenth of a percent. And when you look at 2006, I think there's been roughly 80, 82 so far this year, or up to the point of that data, none of them, 0% was from a cannabis dispensary. So I just want you all to keep in mind that we have speculation and we have reality, and these figures are kind of the reality you're facing right now. So when it comes to considering whether this places a burden on your public utility of police facilities, I would advise you that it's not a burden at this time. And then finally, and I think staff already told you this, when we're talking about the regular public utilities, water, gas, things of that nature, this isn't going to provide any more strain than a regular office space would. This is a retail location. You're using water for a bathroom, maybe to clean things up, and the lights are on while the stores open. Other than that, I know things that you have to consider is whether this would be a public nuisance. I wanted to clarify, the product is not being used on the property. So we're not talking about smell. We're not talking about odor. These are people who are getting a product and they're having to leave before they can use it. So we're not talking about those kind of public nuisances. Safety issues. We've already talked about briefly the fact that they have to have an extensive security plan. I've walked you through the hoops. Someone has to even jump through to get there. And so I would advise you that based on that, those security plans that they have to get through with permitting, we're not looking at safety as a barrier to going ahead and approving this amendment to the project text. And we talked about consistency with the surrounding neighborhood. I know we can talk about it with zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. What I would also advise you is this is an existing building. It's been built to specifications for that PUD, that area specifically. That's not changing. This is a business going into a suite. It's not going to change the outward appearance. There's not going to be any loud advertising, bright lights, things of that nature. The goal here is to fit in to get in. It's not to be different. It's to fit in with that space, not to stand out. And so I will leave you with this. Drugstores and pharmacies are already permitted uses in Area 7 in this PUD. What we're talking about here tonight, a cannabis dispensary, I know it's new. It wasn't around in 2005 when they approved this PUD. So that's the reason why it's not included in the project text. It wasn't even available for consideration at that time. Times have changed, and a cannabis dispensary is functioning like a drugstore at this point, a pharmacy. You have to go in with a card, you have to have a prescription, and you have to provide all those credentials, you have to provide records before you can walk out with the product you seek. So I would ask you to keep that in mind. And keep in mind, we're just asking for an amendment to the permitted uses to add a very, very specific permitted use for a very specific location that falls within that statutory requirement on spacing from protected uses. All right. Do we have any questions I can answer?

Thank you, Ms. Ward. Board, any questions for the applicant or for Ms. Ward?

I'll make one comment here. You mentioned that you're not asking for an actual permit to do this tonight. You're just asking for the possibility. But the real fact is, this is our only chance as a Board of Aldermen to deal with this. So it's not just a matter of you're asking for permission. This is our only opportunity to say yes or no.

I respect that position. Thank you. And I would also ask that the documents have been provided to you all tonight are made an exhibit to the meeting minutes for this evening's meeting. Thank you all so much.

The area map to you all used to get to measure want to stamp the same person did first. Yes.

His name's Christopher. He goes by Shea Skeen. He did both stampings. So I've had those conversations with him and asked him to clarify information.

Well, I have some concerning points about that. A lot of the things that the mayor said earlier, I 100% agree with him. I know the state delegation will have to get in and make some changes. I'm 100%. I'll tell you now, again, Canada's been across the street from a soccer field. but I know we can't do anything about that at this point. I would love for you to bring, brought in two different surveyors from two different companies instead of that same one because it's, I mean, to be 1,001.47 feet, from precise 400 feet, I mean, the sweet 400 that you all put in. Y'all said 400, sweet 400. That's right. From the double doors. And I drove by there this afternoon and looked at it. And so he went out and actually measured from point to point.

That's the information that's been provided to me. That's what I asked, because I was curious too. Is there someone sitting behind a computer making these measurements? But they did field work. You'll see at the bottom there's a field work date on the map that was provided to you back in January of 2026. They went and pulled that information. And I do understand your concern. It is a foot and a half. I think if we were talking about 100 extra feet, 200, 1,000 extra feet, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation. But what I will tell you is, this still has to go through permitting with the state if the state has any concerns this certification is a step in that process should the state go well a foot and a half maybe we need to look at this they have every right to do so during the permitting portion but at this point in time that is the survey we've had it is based on field work and that is the requirement that they've met and i understand the concerns about maybe broadening the statute to other protective uses but like you said as we sit here tonight we have three protected uses, and this is outside of the thousand foot radius of any of those three.

I thought thank you miss Ward Mister Nasser you've been well represented another question as well yeah I'm like Alderman Diggerson I know it means a lot but he's right we don't get one chance to address something whether or not they're approved by the state it is based where that really whether or not it's approved by us because this is a this is where it comes from because once it's here we won't see it again to depending on how we decide.

I do appreciate that position. Olive Branch, though, is a city has already decided to put permitted uses of cannabis dispensary in neighborhood commercial and office districts. So as staff presented to you, this was any other neighborhood commercial location and it was outside of the 1000 foot buffer. We wouldn't even be here. There wouldn't be a decision. It would go straight to permitting at the state and local levels. So I do appreciate this is your chance to discuss this project because it is within a pod that has that project text amended. But what I would tell you is in any other situation in these kind of districts, you wouldn't be in that conversation. That would be happening with permitting and there would be requirements that they have to meet to go ahead and install a dispensary.

How would you address the mayor's listed concerns? What would your response be to those?

So I understand the mayor's concerns, but at the proximity to the park, there's been no proven relationship to a negative effect on the park. These are two separate kinds of uses. People are going to the park to watch a game. People with medical cannabis cards are going into a location to get their prescription and leave. So while I understand that there's a concern that it's located so close to a facility with children, I don't quite understand the crossover of how that's going to harm that park.

I re-read this entire thing from the beginning, but it wasn't necessarily addressing the park as much as it was the neighborhood around it, not just the park, whether it be the homeowners, whether it be the people across the street in a business, whatever. It said neighborhood, basically an improvement to the surrounding area. How would you explain that it's an improvement or not an improvement?

It's offering a service to this portion of your city. It's a service that isn't being provided in this area, and it's a service that's allowing a medical use to individuals who may need it. So what I would tell you is it is serving a use in that respect. I know maybe you and I wouldn't use the facility or we wouldn't qualify to go in there, but there are people out there who have this need, and it would be fulfilled by someone being at a location being located closer to them proximally, maybe closer to their neighborhood. It is providing that service kind of closer to home for some people.

Let me ask you one other question. This development's been under construction for an awful long time and has not progressed to where even the main C store is even open. As far as I can tell, there are only two suites that actually have a sign on them. One's a nutrition center and one's a vape shop. So the only other... Potential client is now a medical cannabis Is there no businesses that would serve the neighborhood a majority of the neighborhood rather than such a limited? Thing that that would possibly be filling some of these suites because there's nothing else going in and hasn't there's just no other activity except to me it's a slap in the face of the neighborhood to say a vape shop and a medical cannabis dispensaries the best we can do and

And I don't want to speak out of turn. I know Mr. Nassar's here, so I'm going to let him correct me if I'm wrong. But my understanding is some of the empty suites, there's going to be a Pizza Hut location. And potentially, there's been discussion about maybe a coffee shop in that area. So those would fit in, I think, with uses that people would be using. I understand the frustration. You've got empty buildings. But I think they are working towards filling those with stuff like a pizza shop, a cafe, things that other people would use beyond just a medical cannabis shop.

There's other developments we've approved in the last three years, large ones. There's some also that haven't done anything, haven't spun a bit of dirt, but there's some that's max capacity and actually in a smaller area. It just seems awful odd to me.

I understand, and I can't speak to the past of the development, but I think there are steps that are being made to go ahead and fulfill some more needs within those other existing suites that haven't been filled yet.

Thank you. I'm trying to get my hands around this too. We voted, the way it's been passed, you're asking us to approve medical cannabis. Then you're saying under the state law, it would be approved, right? That and under our ordinances too?

Well, would you like me to? Okay, so what the applicant is asking for is for a zoning approval. And that zoning approval, the request is to add medical cannabis dispensary as a permitted use in a particular suite in the Trinity Park PUD. Okay. And if the board approves that, as requested and as recommended by the Planning Commission, if the board approves that request, then medical cannabis dispensary would be allowed as a permitted use, meaning no further Board of Aldermen review, and the only zoning approval that's required of the city would have been granted. The next step for the applicant would be to apply to the state of Mississippi to the Department of Revenue for a medical cannabis license. And that's where the state comes in, and that's where the distance issue ultimately comes in, because distance is a state issue, which I'll get to in just a moment. But to answer your question, the next step, if the board were to approve it as a permitted use, that is the only zoning approval that is required. And to Alderman Dickerson's point, that is, in essence, approving a medical cannabis dispensary location per the request of the applicant. Now the state license, if that were issued, there's an extensive application process that has to be submitted to the state and a very large application fee that is required by an applicant to the state. The state has to issue its license before the city considers a medical cannabis local permit. And the city process essentially just reviews the documents that were submitted to the state. And if all those documents are in order, then the city issues its license. And that city license is issued through the city clerk's office and does not come to the Board of Aldermen. So the only opportunity the board has to review this is this proceeding tonight. And it is in a planned commercial district, so that's why it's in front of y'all. If this were straight C1, C2, C3, the board would never have heard this because you've already adopted an ordinance that recognizes medical cannabis dispensaries as permitted in our conventional commercial zones. But this is not a conventional commercial zone. It's a planned district that has a specific project text with specific goals and priorities.

And that's why it's coming back for us.

That's exactly right.

And I know she said Area 7. I know we have drugstore or pharmacy. Does ours now have Canopy in it? Is that part of permitted use or not? NC1.

NC1.

It's in C4, Area 7. Is it part of it now?

Is medical cannabis dispensary? No. Medical cannabis is not permitted. It still will be a conditional use. No. The request is for medical cannabis dispensary to be a permitted use. I know that.

Right. But what I'm saying is if we had approved this Area 7 back in the day, would that have been approved? You know, it's hard to it's hard to say.

Yeah, it's hard to say because it's a planned district. And so each planned district has a site specific text that serves as the ordinance for that development.

So I can't say it could have been in there. Could it not be? That's exactly right. That's right.

And if it gets approved tonight, if this applicant goes away for whatever reason, it doesn't go forward, then someone else can still go forward with medical cannabis dispensary in that location. if it's approved or not just like if you approved a c4 or a pud today yeah it would not necessarily be in there my mind get the state and us right to try with the public and understand too any other items maybe talk to the board as well about the character and consistency of the neighborhood as far as how it relates to this if this isn't consistent or inconsistent with the neighborhood how to packs their decision

Whether it's consistent or inconsistent with the neighborhood is a fact question, not a legal question. So I can't really give an opinion, a legal opinion, as to whether it's consistent with the neighborhood. Now, there is language in the project text that prioritizes permitted uses that would show sensitivity to adjoining uses. There is language in the project text that prioritizes permitted uses that would not conflict with existing land uses, both within Trinity Park and in areas in the neighborhood of Trinity Park. And so that's the type of language I believe you were referring to at the beginning of your comments as to the project text. Now the zoning ordinance itself and the comprehensive plan does not address medical cannabis in proximity to parks. Our zoning ordinance does not buffer parks from medical cannabis. But I believe the argument you were making was rooted in the project tax, not in the zoning ordinance. Okay.

And the board, based on their own vision and eyesight and their own real-life practices, can determine whether or not

That's correct in state law recognizes the Mississippi Supreme Court is for years recognize that the board is entitled to rely on its own common knowledge and familiarity of the neighborhood. That's from the language that the Supreme Court of Mississippi is used for and so that's part and parcel of a zoning analysis. Two things, Mayor, that I'll mention and then I'll let us proceed to the next portion of the public comments. It's important whenever you're dealing, and Dr. Song addressed this, Whenever you're dealing with planning and zoning items, the threshold question is, what is your subject property? I believe Dr. Song identified it's not Area 7 broadly. It's not Lot 1 broadly. It's Suite 400 within Lot 1, within Area 7 of the Trinity Park PUD. And I believe that was the staff's report. and applicants council has concurred with the staff's report. And so if the board were to approve this, it would be limited to a particular suite on a particular lot within a particular area of the PUD. It's a very narrow request for a very narrow piece of property. Now, as to the survey, the initial survey that was presented to the board in your packets, that survey has been updated. Ms. Ward passed out an updated survey this evening that contains an updated certification. The diagram is the same, but the surveyor's stamp and certification is different. That certification language that's in the document that you were passed out tonight, it appears to me that it tracks the language in the Department of Revenue regulations as required by the state. Now, distance, the distance from a church, daycare, or school is not a local zoning issue. That is an issue for the State of Mississippi Department of Revenue to decide. The best example of that is with liquor stores. So liquor stores, for example, have to be a prescribed distance by state law from a church. Well, the city regulates liquor stores as general retail. So if the liquor store were to come in and it was in a commercial zone where the city allows general retail, they would have zoning approval from the city with no board review, but that does not mean the state will issue a package store permit because they have to be this certain distance from the church. Same issue with medical cannabis. The city has approved medical cannabis dispensaries as permitted in C1, C2, and C3. But that doesn't mean an applicant can open up a business there. They have to go through the state process, which includes the submission of the survey, which includes a verification of the distance. If, hypothetically, if the board were to approve medical cannabis dispensary as a permitted use in suite 400 tonight, and then the applicant were to apply to the state, and were determined that that survey was actually less than 1,000 feet, then the state would not issue a license. That would be the state process and how that would work. So theoretically, zoning and state licensing are two different processes, two different procedures. In an ordinary situation, the board would not be considering the distance issue. Now, with it being less than 18 inches beyond the requisite distance, and with it being planned commercial, the city didn't ask for the survey. The applicant submitted a survey that was purporting to have drawn a line from a very particular point on the earth cotton picker spindle at the northwest corner of the LaBelle Haven Baptist Church property, and you go to, per Department of Revenue regs, it's a double door, and you have to go to where those double doors adjoin. So this is not an imprecise distance that has to be measured. But the surveyor has certified that he did that. And I'm not gonna substitute my judgment for that of the licensed surveyor. They've presented a survey with the required certification and ultimately whether this survey is sufficient is an issue for the Department of Revenue to determine. It's not a zoning issue for the Board of Aldermen to determine. So, Mayor, that's all I have, unless there's further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Dye. Board, any questions of Mr. Dye on the legalities? Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, hearing none, thank you, Ms. Ward.

Thank you for your time.

This is a public hearing. If you are a proponent, if you're here on behalf of this application, you would like to see this application approved, come forward. Seeing none, if you're here as an opponent, you do not wish to see this application proceed, please come forward and, again, state your name and address for the clerk and fill out a blue card, please, after you're through.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor, Alderman. Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak. I'm Dean Stewart. I'm a citizen of Olive Branch, live at 4596 North Terrace Stone Drive in Olive Branch, and I'm the pastor of LaBelle Haven Baptist Church. Tonight, I speak in opposition to this marijuana dispensary near our soccer fields, the three surrounding neighborhoods, and the church I pastor. This is not a debate about whether or not marijuana is illegal or even if this business belongs in Olive Branch. That debate is settled. This issue is whether or not this location that we're talking about tonight is appropriate for this type of business. I share with you that this business is incompatible with the land use that is already there. The properties that are already there are all family oriented. They are family-oriented spaces. Every weekend, the soccer fields have hundreds of children playing, hundreds of parents there, and they are dozens of coaches. I hear that there's already a drug store there and you have been led to believe that a medical marijuana dispensary is like a drugstore. Well, I buy my wife's chocolates for Valentine's Day in that drugstore, usually very late in the day on February the 14th, if I'm just being honest. I don't think I can go to a dispensary and buy chocolates or Gatorade or Coca-Cola if I'm playing at a soccer field. They're not the same thing, and let's not be coy and pretend like they are. The three neighborhoods that would back up to this dispensary are filled with families who've chosen this area because it is a safe, community-oriented area. I'd like to share with you that as a 10-year pastor of LaBelle Haven Baptist Church, investing my life in this community, that those three neighborhoods are some of the best neighborhoods for young couples to begin their life because they offer affordable homes. where they can bring their children into this world and they're safe. They're not transient. They are safe, solid neighborhoods and they are affordable homes. And we're saying to those individuals, we would like to put a medical marijuana dispensary right next to your family oriented community. That doesn't make sense to me. Putting a pot dispensary in such a place creates a clear incompatibility use of land with the community that we have. And I don't think it's the best that we can do in community planning. Now, the members of law enforcement I have a special relationship with, and I have talked to several of them. And I want to share with you that several of them have shared with me that we have dispensaries already, and they only allow two or three or four people in at a time. And this does create foot traffic with people standing in line to get into the dispensary. They shared with me to check out Wood Boulevard. Wood Boulevard, they are people at times standing in line to get in because they only allow a couple at a time in the dispensary. And because there's only a couple at a time allowed in the dispensary, the parking lot is generally full when they are people standing in line and it's creating some issues on Wood Boulevard, both

foot traffic, and vehicle traffic.

The decision you make tonight is going to shape what that part of our city looks like for years to come. You use your imagination. What's going to follow a pot dispensary into that place? Is Cryolite Realty going to open up a retail, going to open up a realty office? Is there going to be a law office come in, a family restaurant come in? We know what's going to come next. We know what's going to follow a pot dismantling and you're shaping our part of our neighborhood, our part of our city for years to come. Secondly, I do want to speak just for a moment about the survey that was presented to you. It measures to the north. It measures to the to the to the excuse me. It measures to the southwest corner. Pardon me, the northwest corner of our property at Olive Branch. That's the southwest part of the drive going into our church there at LaBelle Haven. That measurement is to where the property that we own, that's where we have a clear deed. The south side of the entrance to LaBelle Haven. But we owned the property where the box storage unit is located now. We sold that to the developer. And we entered into a contract with them, a legal binding contract. That driveway that is there will be used by them and by us. And that we will pay for the upkeep and they will help pay for the upkeep and we can use it going in and out. And we use that driveway, we use it for events in our church. We've sold barbecue out of that driveway right there. That is not part of our deed, but it's part of legally what we get to use. So I ask you to consider that. Now I would never impute a surveyor, but if you would look at the analysis that is on your screen, you will see a circle, a perfect circle. Now, there is a book in the Bible called Numbers, but I'm not an expert at math in any way, shape, form, or fashion. But I want you to notice it has a circumference of 1,000 feet. It actually says that almost due east, there's 1,000 feet across the service station and the liquor store across the street. And it's a perfect circumference. And then to our property, it's 1,001.47. If I remember correctly, that is an impossibility. A circle has to be 1,000 feet in all direction, or it's no longer a circle. It's odd long. It's an egg. This is a complete perfect circle, and it says that its circumference is 1,000 feet everywhere except coming toward us, and it's 1,001 foot. If this is drawn accurately, it has to be egg-shaped, not a circle. so what i would say to you is i question my surveyor how come you've got this as a perfect circle when it's one foot further on this side than it is the rest of the circumference i ask you to consider this survey this evening i just want you to know i appreciate you so very much i appreciate you giving me an opportunity to stand and to share I've heard that this is spot zoning. I've heard that if it was C1, C2, C3, we would not even be having this conversation. I can make your job easy. Let's ask Brother Nassar to go somewhere else, C1, C2, C3, and then y'all don't even have to vote on it. can put it in they can put it in and develop it there this is spot zoning for something that is not compatible with what is already there and it's going to shape the community that we live in and that we invest our lives in and i'm asking you to very respectfully say no not tonight not here not at this particular location and again as i said in the planning commission You can reject my opinion without rejecting me. Mr. Nassar can reject my opinion without rejecting me. And when we walk out of here, we'll be friends, and we'll work together to make Olive Branch a great city, and we'll be neighbors. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you. Thank you, Pastor Stewart. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this application, who would like to come forward and speak against this application?

Good evening, Mayor and Board. I just want to thank you for this opportunity. My name is Tal Brower. For the record, I'm at 4800 Highway 305 North in Olive Branch, Mississippi. Again, my name is Tal Brower, and I serve as the student pastor at LaVille Haven Baptist Church under the pastor, Dean Stewart, that just spoke. And I am here today to address the obviously the dispensary that is going in directly across the street from the church at which we serve. My purpose tonight is to advocate for the well-being of the young people in our community whom God has called me directly to minister to in Olive Branch. Our church ministers up to 125 teenagers and children every single week. And I also am weekly at Olive Branch High School and Lewisburg High School, both high schools within this community, every single week ministering to students, trying to invite them to our church at LaBelle Haven. In us at LaBelle Haven, we are deeply concerned about placing a marijuana dispensary directly across from a church and near a soccer complex that has been talked about tonight where children and students regularly gather. Research consistently shows that adolescent exposure and normalization matter. There's a reason companies that are worth anything of any sort have marketing experts that work for their companies. And I heard it mentioned that there would not be some flashy advertisements, but there will still be advertisements for this dispensary. And so studies have found that when teens are exposed to cannabis retailers and advertising, they are more likely to view marijuana as less harmful and more socially acceptable. And that matters because perception comes before participation. I'm not going to get into all the health concerns that come behind the use of medical or the use of marijuana but the University of Mississippi put out a study just last week that one in 5 teenagers are suffering from depression and the majority a significant amount of those teenagers that are suffering from depression they use substances like marijuana. This is not about, sorry, excuse me. As a student pastor, I see firsthand that teenagers are incredibly influenced by what adults normalize around them. And when a dispensary is placed directly beside places designed for youth, recreation, and worship, it communicates something whether we intend it to or not. It is communicating something. This is not about condemning adults or attacking business owners. It is about asking a simple question. Is this, in Olive Branch, Mississippi, the best location for something that even researchers agree can influence adolescents' perception and behavior? Is two feet, less than two feet, enough to protect our kids, our students, the next generation of Olive Branch, Mississippi? Is two feet enough? I respectfully ask this board to prioritize our students, our families and the long term health of this community by voting against placing this dispensary in this location. I also heard it said that if this was any other situation, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact of the matter is this isn't another situation, and this medical dispensary is right across the street from a church, and it is well within where, as the mayor mentioned, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of children will be frequenting weekly also at LaBelle Haven. I want to thank you for this time, and I want to reiterate what my pastor said. You can oppose my opinion. I can oppose anyone's opinion, but we love everybody, and we want to walk together and make Olive Branch better than it's ever been. Thank you.

Thank you, Pastor. Anyone else would like to speak in opposition?

Good evening.

And stark was Rogers a 6, 4, 9, South Trinity Park. And mayor, I'm here today to speak on behalf of all the branch and represent the Trinity Park subdivision. The one thing I just want to get up and do is to actually acknowledge the facts. The facts are, in the state of Mississippi, MCA, the Mississippi code annotated, state law governs the core framework of the medical marijuana program. But local, city, and county governments retain control over zoning and operational rules. State law strictly prohibits local ordinance from entirely banning medical cannabis dispensaries or enacting rules that make their operations in practice. It's the only thing the state law does. I just want to state the facts. I do respect the council, and she did mention that to work in the realities the pastor so eloquently stated. The reality is that we are the residents in this community. WE'RE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE WORKING DAILY TO BUILD SOME TYPE OF INTEGRABLE FAMILY TO REPRESENT THIS CITY WELL. I DID MEET MR. NASSER AND I'M A MAN OF MY WORD. You met my family, you met my wife and children, and I respect you. As the mayor said, congratulations on your marriage, and I did agree with one thing for you, so I'm not standing here against you today, but I'm standing here for Olive Branch. The CVS is a pharmacy, I get it. IT DOES HAVE THOSE REGULATED DRUG ITEMS, BUT THE ONE THING, AS THE PASTOR STATED, THE USES ARE TO BUY RETAIL GOODS, AS WELL AS MEDICATIONS SUCH AS BAND-AIDS, PEROXIDE, OR OTHER ITEMS THAT, TOOTHPASTE, OTHER ITEMS THAT A FAMILY MAY NEED, AND THOSE SAME ITEMS ARE NOT REGULATED HERE. MR. MAYOR, BOARD OF AUTHORITIES, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU PROTECT ALL OF BRANCH. I was just driving the other day, and this has been on my heart, Mr. Nassar, and I see all of these vape shops, you know, Puff the Dragon, the Cloud Guy. All of these things are tailored. Fantastic colors are tailored to attract young youth. Chief Gammon, you sit there today. They're developed to attract young people. The young people are our future. We must take upon our shoulders the responsibility of making integrable decisions that will grow us in a respectful way. Mr. Mayor, you and I have had personal discussions, and I use the analogy of the cheap date. I don't want Olive Branch to be the cheap date. every business that comes on on hand shows up fly by night leave various things there and i do want to relate to the pud i'm a part of our hoa the mayor knows that i'm a big proponent of keeping all the branch clean safe and a great place to live The one thing that we've discussed over and over was the PUD that was developed that you did present tonight. And we discussed that in our board meetings for over 10 years now. We were expected to have a hotel. The night that this was passed for a C-Store, I was desperately concerned because you and I have talked Mr. Mayor, we just have an incredible amount of gas stations. And it's just not productive for us. I sit in a planning meeting, I go to QT, they're not even keeping up the pressure washing. There's various items that these things are just not happening, okay? So I wanna agree with the facts and data. And the facts are, this affects us in a real way. Let's keep OB, OB. I want us to do that and consider that with urgency. Mr. Nassar, I shook your hand and I looked you in your eyes and we made an agreement, so I'm going to stick with that. But because of my integrity and honesty, but in reality, the concern is, hey, I am for all the branch and I cannot sit by and let us continue to make these fallacy decisions that are downgrading our property values and in care encouraging others to move to other counties around us. We must move forward the last thing I must say. I'm an American. I stand we're celebrating now 250 years this year. I served in the United States Navy. And I do recognize anyone to make sure that they say the pledge to that flag. I don't support Kaepernick or any of those guys, no one who disrespects it, okay? We cannot acknowledge it, we cannot agree, but when we're asked to stand and represent and honor the flag, that's very important to me. Even in my capacity as an African American, and I'll say that in a room full of Caucasians and other diverse people. We got to be honest with ourselves about what we stand for and what we mean when we're developing this city, guys. It's not a fly-by-night. You have a great piece of land here. You have a great county and a great opportunity. Let's take it and let's grow it respectfully this be strategic in our growth and make sure that is something that is going to be tangible is going to leave some type of prosperity for future residents. Other than detriments and that's all I have from there, thank you, thank you for your time.

Anyone else wish to speak in opposition.

Opposition to the opposition.

I know it's opposition. I actually would just love to make general comments. So my name is Sadiria Gray. I am the owner of Foreign Daughter Cannabis Dispensary located at 8101 Hax Cross Road, Olive Branch, Mississippi. Just like Pastor Stewart said, I haven't met Mr. Nasir, but I'm not necessarily just in complete opposition for this, but I do want to explain to you all the state of cannabis dispensaries in Olive Branch and across Mississippi before you make your decision. From what I'm understanding, you all said that this is basically your only time to make a decision. I came in here with the recommendation of delayed but not denied. So what that means is, right now in Mississippi, we have only 67,000 patients in the state of Mississippi. Particularly in DeSoto County, we only have 4,100 patients across 10 dispensaries. That is not enough to sustain 10 dispensaries in DeSoto County. So while we are a growing county, which is amazing, for some reason there is a lack of that same growth in the cannabis dispensary. I've been open for two and a half years now, and I have not, we have not, as cannabis dispensaries across DeSoto County, seen significant growth. Matter of fact, this past year we've seen a decrease. So we are currently at once again 67,000 patients in the state of Mississippi. We have the expected amount of people was supposed to be about 90,000 right about now. So we're behind the curve and we're also losing patients every day due to the expense of cannabis as well as access and lack of education. So I have 3 reasons actually particularly to as to why we should delay this even I know you I mentioned that this probably the only time. Mainly for number one we currently have 5 the Smith series in olive branch we have enough the Smith series to support the need that we currently have in the city. These 5 dispensaries are located around Olive Branch and so far we have not heard any issues about people having access issues or having issues creating access for it. We also have about 10 dispensaries within, like I said, DeSoto County and we have one dispensary in Holly Springs, another one coming up in Holly Springs, one in Byhalia. So we have a lot of access that's available currently right now for dispensaries. So what I'm asking is for the people who have been open like me for about 2 1⁄2 years now, I'm one of two dispensaries that were here from the very beginning. I'm also the only locally owned dispensary right now. So what we're asking is to give us time for this market to mature so that we can be able to make our money back get a return on our investment within this city. I chose Olive Ridge for a specific reason. I enjoyed living up here in North Mississippi. I'm originally from Starkville, but I have enjoyed it. I see the growth. I see everything that's happening in the city. It's amazing. But what I want and what I'm asking is to protect those folks who already have a business here and make sure that we thrive as well. That's something that's extremely important. It's going to be difficult when we are continuously having to go up against competition or new dispensaries that are opening every day. It does make it more difficult. So if it's not already currently zoned in that C1, C2, C3, I would respectfully ask that we just reconsider when one of two things happen. Number one, we either go recreational, no clue when that would happen, but either recreational, or number two, we increase our patient count across the state, particularly in DeSoto County. One of those two things needs to happen before we can support another dispensary in Olive Branch. That is something that I really want to advocate for. So it's not that necessarily I'm against someone else coming in, that's not it. It's just right now the numbers don't support another dispensary. That's all I'm saying. So I am completely fine with that, but that's one thing. And also my father is a pastor as well, so I definitely understand the sentiments of the community for sure when it when they're talking about what they're talking about as well. So I do want to acknowledge that. But I'm just talking right now from the actual perspective of business owner right now that has a dispensary. The second one. Well, I already kind of went over there about the current zoning. So I wanted to see if anyone from the Board of Aldermen had any questions specifically for someone that's currently owning a dispensary within Olive Branch.

I'd rather not go down that path. It's too far off subject. I appreciate what you're sharing, but I'd rather not go into your business or that need to ask questions of the applicant or staff report. This is just public comments for them to take in and hear and massage and make their decision.

Okay. Thank you so much. Well, I think this concludes all of my comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else like to speak in opposition? before the public comment section is closed. I'll go back to the applicant, Ms. Ward, back to you and Mr. Knosser one more time. But any final comments? Hearing none, Ms. Ward, Mr. Knosser,

Mayor, as always, I just want to address a few quick points that were made in opposition. First, I understand the comments about the survey, but what's before you tonight is the only stamp survey. And I get the whole one foot comment and the imperfect versus perfect circle. But on that scale, I think a foot is going to be pretty hard to differentiate between an egg in a circle. So I would just provide you with that there. That's the only stamp survey we have in front of us tonight. And so there was a lot of emphasis on this being safe, a safe neighborhood. I provided you with the information regarding how dispensaries don't make it unsafe. And what I want to tell you is there are other uses in this location. We've talked about it. And it's not just CVS. It is a pharmacy. They fill prescriptions. You've got a liquor store across the street. You've got a vape shop next door. So I understand the need for family oriented uses or the want for that. But there are other existing uses in a neighborhood commercial district that aren't necessarily directed right at families. So I want to tell you that it is consistent with some of the uses you already have their drug stores. And I mean, I wouldn't liken it to a liquor store or a vape shop because there's not a lot of regulation there as there is in this this space. And there was comments about property values. I've seen no proof that a store of this type in that location will decrease property values. And without that data or anything else related to it, I would advise you that that's not a substantial piece of evidence that you should consider this evening. And then there was a comment made about this location being directly across the street from the church. And I just respectfully want to remind you that it is around the corner. Their doors don't even face the same street. It is outside of the statutory spacing and the foot requirement. And with regards to the city, it has not placed any more stringent requirements on dispensaries. We have the state requirements, which the city follows. So I understand the citizens want for maybe more stringent requirements, but those don't exist. And what's been provided to you tonight fits within the statutory requirements. And then finally, I respect the opinion of there being existing dispensaries in the area. But as you all know, because you've had these decisions before you before zoning decisions can't be used to restrict competition. And so another use of the same type or the statement that we don't need another one, that's not something you consider can consider as a board making a consideration on zoning determinations. So with that, I will leave you to your decisions. Thank you for your time tonight.

Thank you, Miss Ward. Board, do you have the information you need? The public hearing is hereby closed. I need to officially announce that. Thank you, Mr. Dye. Board, any questions, comments, or motions?

I have a quick comment, and I'll make it brief. Thank you for all your input on both sides. I hope to simplify this. In this aspect, I agree with Ms. Ward. This is not a business regulatory decision. It's not even really a moral decision. I have, everybody's got their opinion on cannabis or liquor, et cetera. I had a very close friend in Texas who passed away 15 years ago from pancreatic cancer, and he was a beneficiary of medical cannabis, so I think it has its place. For me, however, I would say this. It comes down to the simple intent, I believe, of Mississippi state law when it comes to distance of where it's located within children. It's very clear to me that while churches are not unique to children only, they do have lots of children in churches. Playgrounds also in parks have children on them, as well as new schools and daycares. So for me, it's about the intent of the law, and our city park and soccer field come within 1,000 feet of this asked for location. So for me, my decision would be no, and unless my other fellow board members have any comments, I'll make a motion, Mayor, at this point, to deny the request to add that to the zone.

thank you have a no motion I agree with all of them are hard however also acknowledge that this spear when they when they read wrote this project takes it said that it showed improvement not a disprovement to the neighborhood from the neighborhoods around there to the park itself is is there and members of their homeowner board are not not really in favor they're not necessarily inside the businesses but i i think that matters when the when the project tech says it so if you're making i'll second it a motion by mr earhart second by mr wallace any more discussion

Let me add one thing. When I first heard this, immediately my thoughts were, no, this is not gonna work. But we have the duty to do this, I'll say legally is the word I'll use, we understand that the other zoning the sea one sea to see three all these are meeting already. I would like to motion to be clear enough that we will stand any pushback appeal whatever what happened may follow if we decide to do this and rejected. I'd like to motion to include that that one of the basis, in fact, my main basis of doing this is it is not compatible with the project text that indicates they would work with the existing community and existing uses that this is directly against everything that's already there and it doesn't agree with that project text and I'd like that to be specifically mentioned in there so that if it becomes appealed it's not going to be because it was within the thousand feet or the parks that are not excluded. I want this to be legally solid that we can

hang her hat on so if there's any way with a motion and a second we need to at least close that out first before we go to the new motion unless mr earhart wants to amend yeah i think it's the opportunity would be for alderman earhart to consider alderman dickerson's comments and does he want to clarify his motion

I agree with the churches in my ward, Ward 3, and I agree with pretty much what Alderman Dixon said. I think there's some with the mayoral open comments should have been enough. I mean, what he said is open comments is what we really need to be focused on. Like he said, I want to make sure that we don't come back on us on appeal. And based on being practical and using the mayoral open comments, I think that's the right way to go. And so I'm like Alderman Earhart. I'm totally against this. So if you want to put that in your motion, I'll be fine.

You have to be happy to think for the record. Mayor and Council die. I would add to specifics that in my opinion it has not proven to me that the areas change to warrant such a business in that location nor has it been proven to me that there's a public need for a medical dispensary marijuana dispensary at that location. I'll be willing to make those 2 comments my motion.

I don't want to nitpick but that's not exactly what you said Mr Dickerson.

Well see I'm not thinking things before us about whether it's a public need. The issue is going to be there's nothing in the zoning ordinance to stop it. The thing that's going to stop it in my opinion is the project text that was originally approved that said they were going to do these things to be in compliance and in harmony with their existing neighbors and existing uses. so the public need and all that other is is not is not going to be relevant in an appeal the project Texas on what we're going to hang our hat on is that they agreed in two thousand five to do this and now they're coming back and asking for a use that is not harmonious with what they originally approved to do I think that needs to be clearly articulated in a in a board order that that's our primary reason for denying this

I think that if the board if a board member were inclined to vote no or to deny the application that the basis that has been articulated by Alderman Dickerson is the stronger basis over those other bases that we've heard tonight for reasons why it would be turned down This does not necessarily fit the definition of a spot zone because as Alderman Dickerson has noted, there's language in our zoning ordinance and comp plan that contemplate medical cannabis in neighborhood commercial areas. There is no, based on the certification by the surveyor, Mr. Skeen, it appears the only evidence is that he measured appropriately in accordance with Department of Revenue regulations now that he modified that certification. And so the survey and the distance issue, whether it was one feet or 100 feet beyond the 1,000 feet, if it's beyond 1,000 feet, then the state would recognize that as outside the proscribed distance from the church. So that would not be a basis. That would be a solid or substantial evidentiary basis for denial. You've also mentioned this, is that the idea that we have enough of a particular use. That is not a strong basis for denial in Mississippi. The Mississippi Supreme Court's been clear that trying to avoid competition, that the cities or that the market would dictate when we have enough of a particular use in an area, not the local zoning board. You're not a business regulatory body. You're a legislative body. And so those are all... Including C-Schools, right? Yes, sir. So those are all relatively weak legal bases for denial. If the board were inclined to deny the application, the basis that's been articulated by Alderman Dickerson and the basis that was articulated by Mayor Adams at the beginning of the meeting are the stronger grounds on which the board may consider denial. At the end of the day, the Mississippi Supreme Court will say that a decision that's fairly debatable is one that should be supported. And one of the hallmarks of something that's fairly debatable is if there was actual debate, and you have had that tonight. You've had comments for and against, and that has been politely and legally and appropriately debated. And so if the decision's fairly debatable and the board's relied on its own common knowledge and familiarity with the area, And if the basis of a motion to deny were that it was out of conformance with the project text, those are all available arguments for the board member or members to make.

In the light of that, what I'll do is withdraw my motion and yield to Alderman Dickerson to make his motion.

Thank you, Mr. O'Hart.

I want to make a comment. Actually, Dale and I are the only two sitting Aldermen that voted for this, and it does not meet the project.

I voted for that.

I'm talking about the original one. Okay. Yeah. So, I concur with Dent. Mayor, just to clarify.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, Alderman Kahn. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Are you finished, Alderman Kahn?

No, I just wanted to say I concur with Alderman Dickerson on the thing. Because, I mean, that's when we voted for it. And I don't think it meets the project tax. Yeah, well, we voted for it.

All right, well, then I'll make a motion to deny based on the fact that it does not meet the project text that was approved in 2005.

Second. Got a motion from Mr. Dickerson. Second, Mr. Gammage. Any more discussion? If not, I want Mr. Dye to clarify the voting, since this is backwards compared to the way you normally would vote. Mr. Dye?

Yes, so, Mayor, let me make sure I heard that correct. You have a Dickerson motion to deny, and the fact that it does not meet the requirements of the project text, and that was seconded by Alderman Gammage, is that correct? Okay, so this is a negative motion, and sometimes those cause confusion. And I believe, Mayor, you were gonna ask the Clerk for a roll call vote. And so when the board members individually vote, if you vote yes, you're voting in support of the motion to deny. You're voting yes to approve that motion. It's a negative motion, so sometimes it's a little confusing. So if you want to deny the application, you would vote yes on the motion. If you want to vote against that motion to deny, you would vote no. And so a yes vote would be to deny the application that's been submitted by the applicant.

Thank you, Mr. Dye.

Roll call please.

Yes.

Dickerson, yes. Your heart I. Damage yes.

Thank you 60 vote for yes to deny this particular application. Thank you all. Thank you to all participants. Let's continue with the agenda, please. Planning Commission old business. This is a public hearing for consideration of application for zoning map amendments submitted by Michael level Allen a hostile on behalf of property owner to soda County school district. The request is to rezone 42.5 plus or minus acres from P U D plan unit development to M one light industrial district to a are agricultural residential district. The subject property is located on the east side of craft road in the southeast corner of the future expansion. of west sandage road and craft road a public hearing was set for this date and a meeting on april 21st 2026. dr song let's wait just a minute let them exit then you don't have to do what i tried to do

So you can buy a lot of other things at that store too, but that's not relevant.

Is anyone here from the school board? Okay, go ahead, Dr. Song.

Thank you, Mayor Adaman. Before you, it's a request to consider rezoning over 42.5 acre piece of property. This is Craft Road and this is Church Road. This is West Sandwich. You have West Sandwich as constructor currently ends at this location. And this is a paper right of way, essentially. The road is not constructed, but that right of way exists. Historically, this is part of the Funderburg PUD. And what the applicant is requesting that the board should do will be to extract, the Funderburg PUD extends this area marked here in yellow, all through, this is all the Funderburg PUD. There is a convenience store with four pumps currently under construction at this location. So the applicant is asking that the board extricate 35.99 acres from the Funderburg PUD and rezone that from PUD to AR. There is also a small portion of the adjoining property that is currently zoned M1. The applicant is also asking that that small sliver shown here in pink be re-zoned 6.51 acres be re-zoned from M1 to AR. So there are two zoning districts that are involved in this re-zoning. both of them going to the AR zoning district. So the PUD, that is the project tax preliminary plan involved. The M1, that is just conventional zoning district. There's no project tax involved, and that's why there's no extrication. The purpose of the rezoning, current intended development, is to develop this particular site as a DeSoto County Schools Career Technical Center. Because these over 42 acres have not yet been plotted, so if this rezoning were approved, the next step would be for the applicant to bring this in front of you for plotting. At that time you have the opportunity to address all infrastructural issues such as water, sewer, any roads that may be needed to service this particular development. This is the concept plan at this time. The requested rezoning is to go to the AR zoning district. The AR zoning district is conventional, so there's no project text involved. There is no binding preliminary development plan involved. So this is just a concept plan giving the board an idea of what this is gonna look like. They are at liberty to change this along the line. It's not binding what you have in front of you. The type of programs that will be offered in here include fire science, law enforcement, sports medicine, cosmetology, health sciences, general support, automotive science, linemen, logistics and supply chain, assembly, information technology, student services, and of course all of that will be anchored in the administrative building. This is the envisioned architectural design, exterior design of the buildings that will be in the center. As I did mention, this can change. This is not binding because this is just conventional zoning district. But this is the vision that the county school district has at this point in time. So these are kind of the building elevations still with the materials of how the site will look like. Interior designs. the career tech, landscaping, and the exterior. Concerning the key elements for this rezoning, which is the criteria for analysis, the board is required to find that one of two main criteria has been met before this rezoning can go through. One, whether the original zoning classification for the property was a mistake. The applicant submits that a long-term need for expanded public education infrastructure was not fully anticipated when the Funderburg PUD was approved in this particular. So this is the Funderburg PUD primary development plan. You had this area that was designated for mixed use, not for a school. Mixed use is essentially commercial and residential. And then this down southern area, mainly for retail. So a school was never projected or envisioned to be in this particular area. The applicant also avows that there have been significant statewide and regional expansion of workforce development programming at K-12. Staff at the Planning Commission, in its review of this particular item, took into consideration what the staff had found, namely that the original part of the Vandenberg PUD, the text on the associated master plan, was approved back in December, on December 15, 2015, and then revised January 6, 2016. It was approved by the Board of Adamant, September 21st, 2021. The M1 area, which is that small sliver on this particular eastern side of the PUD, was rezoned. The rezoning was approved by the Board of Adamant in 2021. As such, the current zoning designation of the property is not a mistake. These were clearly approved by the Board of Admin and so no mistake was found by the Planning Commission. With regard to the change in character of the area, The applicant avows that there's been increased warehousing, distribution, light industrial, and employment-based uses rather than mixed use that you had in the fundable PUD surrounding this particular piece of property. The Planning Commission did find, based on the staff's research, that we have increased mega-sized industrial warehouses. If you look at this, this is 2014 map. This is how this area looked like. Just barely This is actually 2004. Over 25 years after that, that area has changed significantly with giant industrial warehouses to the east, which the career tech will train workers that can work within that particular industrial warehouse area. And it's still expanding. The industrial warehouse area is expanding further to the north. For example, there is plan to expand and construct more warehouses here and also to the south on distribution drive. Craft Road is also currently under expansion. What that implies is the road is going from a two-lane road from college to church. That should increase the capacity of that road to handle any increased school traffic with students coming up into this particular area. So those are changes that have gone on in that particular vicinity, both from the perspective of economic development and transportation infrastructure. The question of whether there is a public need for this. The applicant avows that there'd be an economic shift towards workforce-oriented land use, regard to logistics-driven economy, increased demand for skilled labor, and growth in blue-collar and technical employment, which the career tech will service. The Planning Commission did find that a future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan 2040 designates most of the property as public and semi-public. which completely aligns, totally aligns with the requested rezoning before you. A career tech is essentially a public use. And so it aligns with the public need. Based on the finding that the rezoning criteria has been met, the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 14th unanimously recommended by the vote of seven to zero that the Board of Adamant 1 rezone 6.51 acre portion of the Wittenland property from M1 light industrial to ARR Agricultural Residential District, extricate the 35.99 acre area from the Funderburg PUD and rezone that from PUD to ARR Agricultural Residential. And unless the remaining area of the Funderburg PUD were re-zoned to a conventional zoning district in future, any future development of this PUD will require a new preliminary development plan for the entire PUD in future. So by basically extricating this 39 point 35.99 acres from the Funderburg PUD, the rest of the PUD becomes unbuildable, so to speak, with regard to the current preliminary development plan. If any developer were to come up to there and develop in the rest of the PUD, they would need to submit a new preliminary plan to the Board of Adamant for approval. That concludes today's presentation. Thank you.

Thank you doctor song so the school come back if this passes this is just on they'll come back with specific project text at a later date and the board knows is as well or better than I that this is an awesome thing to go in our branches generational is going to be a a very positive thing for the area, but any questions on staff report. And this is on public comment as well for this is also public comments is anyone here to stand in opposition or in support of this career take East on craft road. Anyone to speak either way hearing non public comments is closed. Is the applicant here from the soda County schools. See no one to board any questions comments or motions on. Mister. Mister Wallace motion to approve the rezoning is your second. 2nd, Mister Collins all in favor. All opposed motion carries. considered planning Commission new business consideration of application for the preliminary plant of the villages of South branch phase for a submitted by William Kiesel WH Porter on behalf of property owner Michelle Terhune South branch development LLC the request is to create 49 single-family residential lots in one common open space from 14.2 for plus or minus acres. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONE R3, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, AND IS LOCATED AT THE EAST END OF SIPSI WAY AND EAST OF BANKHEAD DRIVE. STAFF REPORT.

MAYOR ADDEMAN, BEFORE YOU USE THE REQUEST TO CONSIDER THE PREMARILY PLATFORM FOR PHASE 4A OF THE VILLAGES OF SOUTH BRANCH SUBDIVISION. Phase 1A, 1B, Phase 2, Phase 3, these have all been completed. Phase 3 is currently under construction, and the applicant is asking that you approve a preliminary plan for Phase 4A, which as you did mention, will preliminarily, our intent will be to approve that for 49 single-family residential lots. This development is progressing from Pleasant Hill towards Davidson Road at this point in time. So this is the preliminary plot. The preliminary plan essentially, in all respects, so to speak, aligns with the preliminary development plan for this particular area that was approved in the project text. So no change has been made. The roads alignment are the same. The lots are the same. No changes in the lot area. Sizes of homes, nothing is changing. Everything simply aligns with what the Board reviewed in 2022 and approved in the project text for the Villages and South Branch. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and its meeting on May 12th, 2026, and unanimously recommended approval subject to these conditions one to six. Condition number six, which I wish to emphasize, these lots will all be accessed through this alley on the back of the property. And the practice on the board has been to in season that the ship and the construction is pretty good at this is intended to avoid the situation we have in Stonecrest for example. That concludes stops presentation. Thank you.

Thank you doctor saw any question board on the staff report. Is the applicant president. Is this the final phase, or is there one more phase left?

There are about three more phases left. They are splitting these into 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B. So all of this area to the north still needs to be constructed. This other area to the south still needs to be constructed. So you may still see about four more phases before we get done with this.

questions or comments or motions.

Since this is part of the original design no material changes on make a motion to approve is presented.

Motion to approve is presented by Mister Hart is your second. Second miss Aldridge all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Next out of public hearing day for consideration action on the motion declaring the condition of the following properties to be administered the public health and safety and directing either the city staff or contract labor clean the property forthwith.

Adam and you have these what it properties before you for consideration, a number of them have been clear to clean scenes. The staff report was sent out for example this what you're on 9, 1, 8, 4, German town road at the South East corner of the intersection of German town road and state line road that has been cut or do not really done the way we would

Before you leave that one the song you take the pointer directly across the street to that other corner on this just so the board knows the property owner gave us consent to clean up around our welcome dollar branch sign and public works did a great job cleaning all kind of brush out and as you enter from the north coming to the south on Riverdale and dollar branch it looks an awful lot better if you hadn't seen it.

Thank you thank you sir. This other house at 4551 Camilla Place, this piece of property has also been cut since a staff report was sent out. These two adjoining lots on Parkview Boulevard, those have also been cut. They actually cut them on Sunday. This piece of property, just north of Plantation Crossing, has not been cut. This particular lot with a single family house on White Hawk Lane in Braeburn subdivision has also not been claimed. And we have this piece of property in Maywood subdivision, 8145 Cedar Hill Lane. The grass is still overgrown. It has not been attended to. You therefore have two lists before you. List A are the lots that have been cleaned for which no action is recommended. And then list B identifies those three pieces of properties for which staff recommends that the board declare a menace to public health and safety direct staff to use either staff or contract level to have them clean. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions or motions on the last three lots on list B?

The only thing I'll mention on that Wussu Enterprise, that property usually every year gets hay baled off of it. And I don't know whether it's gotten tall enough for them to start baling hay, so we might want to postponed some action on that one till they actually have time to get out and and bail the high but that usually cleaned it up. They usually bail it, but midsummer or so and get all cleaned up so that one might we may want to table that one for at least a month or so and see.

the owner to see if they want to, if they're going to bail the hay and sell it. So we'll have staff check. Thank you.

So if the board were inclined to do that, you would be tabling the southeast corner of State Line Road, lot 207, and finding that White Hawk Lane and Cedar Hill Lane were menaced to public health and safety.

is really one here from these lots anyone here representing owns are here on behalf of these particular lots. Seeing none no public comments so brought your motion Mister Dow would be to table will sue not your motion recommendation table will sue enterprise and go forward with White Hawk Lane and Cedar Hill Lane if a board member so inclined to make that motion be my motion this motion from Mister Dickerson's your second. Second Mister Wallace all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Public hearing for consideration of authorized and approving a loan from the Mississippi development authority for the purpose of acquiring a Pierce enforcer fire popper with schnozzle public here was set for this date on April the 7th, 2026 is anyone here to give comments about this fire department. Fire truck, a fire pumper. It's in your packet board.

Mayor, this is a 2% state loan that we can borrow a substantial portion of the purchase price from the state of Mississippi at an extraordinarily favorable interest rate. The remainder will be covered with general funds in next year's budget. And it's a good opportunity and good program for us to participate in to help finance the purchase of the fire trucks.

Thank you. Mr. May, anything to add on the financial side? 2% pretty good right. I think it is too. Any question questions board about the purchase of this popper as as usual these had to be ordered sometimes 36 months in advance before they get here they're not on a lot somewhere they're constructed once we place order they constructed at the factory. Is your motion to go forward with this. Motion to Mr. Gammage motion to approve their second second Mister Hart all in favor. All opposed motion cares. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A LETTER OF PROPOSAL WITH URBAN ARCH ASSOCIATES PC ON MAPLES MEMORIAL PARK JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT BOARD'S FAMILIAR WITH THIS WE'VE HAD THE 100 YEAR OLD OR ONE LITTLE OVER 100 YEAR THE MAPLES CHURCH that we know what it's gonna take to bring it to ADA compliance, and it's very, very expensive, around $1.7 million. We've had representatives or senators ask for the state money every time for the last four years, and we haven't got anywhere. We would love to get that money to go forward with it, but at the same time, we know we've got to have an alternate plan because it is degrading every day and every year that it sits empty. So the goal was to have urban arts associates to draw a rendering that's not going to be 100%, but a rendering of what type facility we could have what type structure we could have if we take the columns and reuse it the facade up front reuse it the the uh the brick as well and to kind of use everything we can use from the church to keep it at least from a memory standpoint as maples memorial uh but to not let it fall down and make it something the community can use mr die anything to add maybe pull that up do you have the do you have the rendering

it's in their packet and song can you click on that portion of the packet new business one Roman Coliseum well it would eliminate the plan that urban arc would have drawn it would eliminate the basement that's right that's right you know the idea was of course what's before the board tonight is a six thousand five hundred dollar contract with urban art for them to prepare the rendering the mayor discussed and cost estimates for construction the overall project obviously would include an additional phase with urban ark and once you know the construction cost estimates the board could decide then whether to move forward in a future budget cycle now with the rendering that's been given the sketch if you will that's in your packets uh we don't know right now exactly what something like that would cost but it would presumably cost less than a full restoration of the building and the interior and everything and the idea was to restore as many of those architectural elements as you could to honor the legacy of the building and to make it something that's appropriate and classy for the city of olive branch and We may get into it and decide that even this plan is cost prohibitive, and the board's got full authority to make those decisions in the upcoming budget cycle and thereafter. This would just be sort of a phase 1A, just a very initial phase.

So all we're proposing tonight is to spend $6,500 to have a drawing done, and then the next step would be for them to figure out a cost, and after that, we would either say yay or nay.

Right, that's right. So the $6,500 would get you a color rendering, a much more detailed rendering than the sketch, and it would get you construction cost estimates.

And a cost estimate, okay.

yeah and the cost breakdown the board at that point may say that's manageable we can design it in the next budget cycle and maybe build it in the one after that or the board may look at it and say even this is cost prohibitive we've just got to go up with plan c but this just gives the board i think alderman collins said it well it gives the board additional options to consider and and that's that's important

And if you do approve it, then I'd like to get several board members to meet with UrbanArch to give a vision of what you see it looking like so the community can use it instead of it just staying closed and bricks falling off of it. So a couple of y'all could work with UrbanArch to help direct what you think it should be that would be used by the community.

and I'm assuming the cost estimate would include demolition of the current structure, environmental issues, all the whole nine yards.

That's right, and the other, it absolutely would. It would include demolition, it would include construction of whatever park-type structure was proposed, but it also would include, and this may be the part where you've got some embedded costs that could be higher than anticipated, trying to salvage those significant architectural elements, store them somewhere, and then reincorporate that into the finished product could be very expensive we just don't know until urban art studies it 6 500 for a firm of their expertise to prepare this for us i think is uh seems reasonable to me and uh mr eichert and i met with urban art he's been involved in in working with them as well from a coo standpoint since this would follow up under his departments eventually if it moved forward

Any questions or emotions to move forward. Mr Wallace motion to second. Mr Collins second all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Item to consideration of recommendation to approve change order number 10 on contract with a and B construction in the additive amount of 22,000 $437.69 increase the contract amount from 8 million 813,000 933 dollars and 26 cents to 8 million 836,000 370 dollars and 95 cents extend the contract time by 58 calendar days making the new contract completion date June the 15th, 2026 for the project for 2 is our branch public works complex.

Yes, sir. Mayor went out there yesterday. I walked through. I think you can be proud of this building. They were putting up blinds, finishing landscape and working on the floors. But this change order is basically to add some additional access control. Some of the to some of the rooms. It also allows for a dedicated power source for some I T controls that need to be added and then after a fire inspection. There were more fire signatures needed along with the suppression system test and some smoke detectors.

Should be Mister rocker pretty close to the finale correct. Other than the grass that's growing.

Any questions are in dealing with the architect, it felt like the mid June would be about the completion date so.

But took about 58 days. Not of 50 a note that was last meeting one. Mr Dixon motion to approve. Second miss Aldridge all in favor. All opposed motion carries. Is there a motion to leave because leave record session with the tension of going into the executive session is there a motion and second to do that. Mr Collins motion second. Mr Dixon all in favor. All opposed. We are have left record session is a motion to go into executive session to discuss matters one through 9. Mr. Wallace motion second. Mr. Collins all in favor. All opposed. We are an executive session.