City Council - Regular Meeting

to see your travel around the city. Senator. What are you doing? Good evening everyone and welcome to the

city of Roswell mayor and council meeting of Monday, May 11th, 2026. I am Mayor Mary Robisho, and I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my colleagues and council members present. Mayor Prom and Council Member Sarah Bon, Council Member Alan Cells, Council Member Christine Hall, Council Member Jennifer Philippy, Council Member Erin Brumley, and Council Member Chris Zach. I would now like to turn it over to city administrator Randy Knighton to explain how the meeting is run. Mr. Knighton.

Good evening everyone and thank you Mayor Robasho. Uh we're glad to see you here this evening and we appreciate your presence at the mayor and council meeting in accordance with section chapter 3.70. The city council shall hold regular public meetings and the purpose of these meetings are to hear directly from the public who can participate and speak on agenda items which constitute formal decisions by the elected body. These items are listed on the published agenda which can be accessed via the city website prior to the meeting. Public comments and questions are essential for mayor and council to consider as they contemplate each decision. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, we do ask that you fill out a comment card which is located at the back of the room. We do have staff members who can assist you and speakers will be called by the city clerk for each agenda item uh in the order the cards are received. We appreciate again your attendance here this evening. We encourage everyone here and the viewing audience to visit our city website for a list of city events and offerings and also visit roswwell 365.com for a calendar of events. We do ask also that you would silence any electronic devices at this time. Thank you for being with us again and we look forward to a very successful and productive meeting this evening. Mayor Robot.

Thank you Mr. Knighton. At this time, I would like to invite and welcome Justin Eli, lead pastor of Christ Fellowship Church, to deliver the invocation, please. Good evening. Thanks for having me. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, I thank you this evening for the gift of government. I thank you that you love the city of Roswell and the people in it. Lord, your word tells us that if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God who gives generously to all without reproach and it will be given him. So, Father in heaven, I ask tonight for the mayor and for this council for you to grant them wisdom on the matter matters at hand before this city that you would grant this uh body unity tonight as they consider how to best seek the welfare of this city and love the citizens of this city. We remember First Kings 3:9. Give your servant, therefore, an understanding mind to govern your people, that uh they may discern between good and evil. And so tonight, we ask that you give them an understanding mind and their governance. We thank you for this time. We thank you for this city. We pray that you bless her and ask all this in Christ's name. Amen.

Thank you, pastor. At this time, I would like to invite Lynn from the Roswell Rotary Club to come up and lead us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. First on the mayor's report is a presentation of the Roswell remembers memorial day day celebration by the Roswell Rotary Club. I would like to welcome David Young, chairman of the Memorial Day committee to come forward. Thank you, Mayor and Councel. My name is David Young and I am the chairman of the Roswell Members Memorial Day Committee. Let me thank you on behalf of our committee with several uh in attendance for allowing us to give you a brief preview of this year's 27th annual ceremony. The Roswell Remembers Memorial Day ceremony is a joint production of the Roswell Rotary Club and the city of Roswell and we cherish the partnership that we have had for those 27 years. This year's ceremony is of course in conjunction with our city and also our country's celebration of our of the 250th year of freedom. Our keynote speaker for this year's ceremony is the highly decorated retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Carrie S. King. Prior to his 43 years practicing law, King served in the US Army and National Guard for a total of 24 years in the infantry and artillery divisions in Vietnam during 1967,

1968, earning five Bronze Stars and numerous other decorations during that tenure. Carrie was also nominated for the Georgia Military Veterans Hall of Fame in 2021 for Valor. Laying the wreath this year is Miss Louie, Miss Mary Lou Austin. Mary Lou is in her 57th year of service to the USO with many leadership roles while earning many distinctive awards, including the Department of Defense's Distinguished Service Medal and Department of Army's Outstanding Civilian Service Award. The ceremony will also include the honor and color guards, the pledge PMIA tribute, beautiful patriotic music provided by the Roswell Horizon's Orchestra, Mr. Massie McKinley, and of course, barbecue and chicken on the grounds of City Hall. We would like to now show you a short video produced from last year's ceremony uh depicting the significance and beauty of the day in which we honor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for the 27th year on Memorial Day. With the help of dedicated volunteers, Roswell Rotarians, and the staff from the city of Roswell, Roswell City Hall will be transformed as Roswell remembers.

Chairs will be placed, pathways cleared. The site will take shape. Hands at work, ropes and flags, steady coordination. City hall will be transformed with a giant flag draping the facade. Neighbors and volunteers will stack chairs and greet one another. The American flag anchors the stage. Community roots the moment. Families arrive, veterans march, and history will be honored. The stage is set. Officials and attendees take their seats. Musicians will tune up. The band ready for a patriotic repertoire. Smiles and flags across generations. Community together. Veterans pose with pride. Attendees capture meaningful moments. This is Roswell at its best. Families will gather beneath the flag. Veterans will share their stories. A quiet moment before the program begins. Respectful hush. A wartime memorial and the wreath set with solemn care. Generations together remembering shared sacrifice. Our community will honor the fallen. Speeches conclude a community united in remembrance. And we will thank our veterans, volunteers, and every neighbor who showed up.

And our hometown hero sponsors. Join us at Roswell City Hall on Monday, May 25th. See you there. I also wanted to take a minute just to show you this year's t-shirt which incorporates the theme of our 250 years of freedom. United in united in remembrance. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Young. That was a beautiful presentation and we all look forward to Memorial Day remembrance. City Clerk Nancy Long, please read the final item on the mayor's report.

Yes. This is item number 10450, approval of a memorandum of understanding with the Georgia Department of Veteran Service and the Georgia Veteran Service Foundation to collaborate on the planning, funding, and development of a new veterans home to be located in the city of Roswell, Georgia at a location to be determined.

Thank you. And I'm going to give just a brief um the proposed center is a partnership between the federal department of veterans affair, the Georgia Department of Veteran Services, the Georgia Veteran Services Foundation, Fulton County, and Roswell, Georgia. It would provide full-time wraparound care for 126 veterans in a new state-of-the-art facility. the state of Georgia would operate the facility with support from the VA at no ongoing cost to the city of Roswell. Assistant attorney uh Joe Cusack will now talk about theou. Thank you, Mayor. Um just to give a little background on thisou. This has been um I wouldn't say negotiated, but just a a tandem effort between the Georgia Department of Veteran Services, their foundation, and the city. Uh so what thisou does is it sets out a fundraising goal. Uh the donors uh who contribute on behalf of the Roswell fund here uh will receive a a specific code or it will go in as earmarked for this Roswell project. Uh if the fund uh the fundraising goal is not met, those donors will be returned their money. But if the if the fundraising goal is met, uh this project will move forward into the next phase of trying to find a location uh for this uh veterans housing. Um so we have uh uh the foundation for the Department of Veterans Services is going to allow us to utilize their 501c3 uh account. And so any funds contributed as part of thisou will be earmarked for the purpose of the veterans home in Roswell. I'm happy to take any questions on thisou.

So, city clerk Long, are there any speakers for this item? Yes, mayor. There are two speakers. The first is Janet Russell.

Thank you. My name is Janet Russell. I was interested in item two because you sort of answered my question. It's going to be a group home. But I think words matter and whoever wrote this did not indicate that. If you look where it says a new veteran's home, apostrophe s, that indicates that it's one veteran, one home. Plural veterans with a apostrophe after it is possession of multiple. I was an English major. It jumped out at me real fast. And words matter when we're makingus. So, somebody needs to change this to a new veterans s apostrophe to show possession. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, Sean Henley.

Good evening, everybody. I'm sorry, Mayor. This is the first time I've addressed um the council. Do I have like a minute or two? I don't know if I'm going to get shocked in a minute. You have five minutes. All right. I think that's more than I need. There's a time.

Oh, gotcha. Thank you. So, uh, my name is Sean Hanley. I'm a member of the Georgia Department of Veterans Service Board. I've been there for about 15 years. I was appointed by the last three governors. I actually served as, uh, Governor Kemp's interim commissioner for a short time. Um, and I'm honored to have been a esteemed veteran here in Roswell. um this issue about the thisou I want to kind of give y'all just a little bit of a background not just on the veterans in Georgia and the need but you know how it got here and um you know being from Roswell being friends with the last few mayors I've seen it's them it's us it's us. They did it. They did it. Um, when I first introduced myself to the mayor just a few weeks ago, I introduced myself as a card carrying Republican. Okay. Hard to hard to say nowadays sometimes in Roswell. Um, I wanted to bring this issue up as the need for a long-term care home here. The long-term care home would focus on not just long-term care of our elderly veterans, but also the mental health of them, up to 250 of them. There's over 500 cities in Ro in Georgia. One city's in the game, and that's Roswell. That's it. There's one application sitting at the Department of Veteran Affairs. Every study done over the last few years, including studies done by the Georgia Department of Veteran Services, state, we need a long-term care home in Roswell, in Metro, I should say. You go to Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, they got three times the amount of long-term care homes for veterans and half the veteran population.

What does that tell you? whole lot of people have been sleeping on the job and kicking the can down the road. And like I said, as a card carrying Republican and I sat in there and talked to the mayor, um the first words out of her mouth were, "This is for veterans. How can anybody be against this?" And as I said earlier, it's always been us versus them up here for the last three mayors, and they're my friends. And I just want to say thank you, mayor. You showed a lot of courage just stepping up immediately. And um I hope the whole city gets behind you and this council when it comes to this uh effort we have to get this long-term care home for veterans. Um the state needs it. Uh it would bring upwards of 250 jobs to the area to Roswell. Um, and what better way to honor those who have served all of us than to have a facility that's going to focus on their long-term care, their end of life care, their mental health care, the support those families need of those veterans. So, I hope all of you rally around it. 90% and Joe will tell you, but the paperwork's done. This is the hard part. So, all you council members, whatever big donors you got out there, it's time. Hit them up. And um any way I can help, mayor, I'd be happy to. Thanks for leading on this.

Thank you, Mr. Henley. Any other public comments? There are no other speakers. Does council have any comments or questions regarding this item? Uh, mayor prom to clarify the only financial obligation on behalf of the city is to provide potential real estate which will be determined in the future. We are not to provide any of the fundraising, the fundraising cost or any other financial obligation beyond assembly real estate. Correct. Correct. And that real estate technically could also be a donated portion, but it could be from the city depending on what sites are selected. So either in kind or the city, but that's the the maximum of our

that would be the maximum. Understood. Thank you, Council Member Brumley. Um, is there a time limit to hit the fundraising goal? At this point, there is a time limit, so it's very tight. Um, it's actually the end of August, but we have been in some discussions. If we are able to raise a certain amount, we believe they they are there is indications they will extend it for us to make sure we can reach the goal that we need. Council member Zach, I saw. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor. Wait, Zack first.

Thanks, Mary. Um, this might be a question for John Cusack. Um, or sorry, Joe Cusack. Um, so when I first saw this in the agenda packet, I read some of the contract language and I was like, "Oh, that's a little scary what we're on the hook for." And then I talked to my good friend Claudia, um, and it kind of pointed out some specific areas where it's like, no, this is where the city is protected. And so kind of like, okay, this makes sense. So this might be kind of a can you kind of confirm what anou means and and what it means for the city. Um because I think some of the language I saw might have been scary, but with a a broader perspective, it's like no, it makes sense. We're protected. So hopefully, can you speak to that?

Yeah, the theou just clarifies the relationship that we're going to it's basically a a agreement to work together. Uh and then with some contractual agreements in there, mainly to protect the city and protect the donors that the city brings forward. That money will be refunded if this goal isn't met, the fundraising goal isn't met. uh but they have to abide by any and all nonprofit laws, accounting laws uh that govern these things. So there's some some what I'll call saving language or uh just protect yourself language in in thisou. So it clarifies that we're working together, formalizes that relationship, but also protects the donors and protects the city. Uh and anything like this, there is a a 60-day out once we give notice if for some reason it's not going well. Council members Sal,

Mayor, thank you for bringing this forward. Good job. And this is a great great great effort and thank you uh for the Veterans Foundation for um working so hard on this. Who is imposing the deadline of August? Who is that at this point? It's the federal government. It is. So, it's a is there a grant associated with this or um the federal government for this project is putting forth $65 million Um, if we hit the 35 threshold, we hit the 35 threshold. So, the total project is 90 million basically is what we're saying. 100. But yeah. Yeah, that's right. Math Math's hard.

Thank you. Uh, and so a $90 million project plus the land. Is that what we're saying? Basically, the land would be part of the 90 or is it an addition? Land would be an addition to Okay. And have we thought about like what type of zoning areas we're talking about and any of that kind of thing been thought about?

There has not really been a lot of discussion only because we first have to raise $35 million in approximately four months. So I think there's been some thought processes but no specifics in regards to zoning or where it might be. There have been um some very early discussions of even some private donation of land, but that has not been finalized in any way, shape, or form even looking at zoning at this point because it's until we can at least see that we're going to get close. It it's it's let's focus on getting the money and then go from there.

It sounds as if we've made some initial calls. Is that is that fair? Um there's been some initial discussions just that the project is um on the table especially once the Georgia VA approved and it said that they would like to work with the city of Roswell. Super. Okay. Uh yeah. Yeah. Joe, um you did you you drafted this with the Georgia Department of Veterans Affairs or something of that. Yes. And they're represented by the Attorney General's office. So, it went through uh I guess back and forth with the attorney general's office as well since they're an executive agency.

Would you say that 3A paragraph 1 uh subject to applicable approvals? Is that are we talking about the zoning approvals by this mayor and council or would you say that we are essentially uh foregoing those through the process of joining this mou? No, I mean that's always something that's going to have to be brought through this process. Okay. I may have a couple more, but go ahead, Christine. Council member Hall.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Hanley, for bring for bringing this forward. Um, I this is the other than casually being mentioned in in a prior meeting, this is the most information I've had on this. Is there a deadline for thisou? And the reason I ask is because typically these would come through committee and in committee we could probably get more information u the type of project that we're envisioning the types of jobs perhaps the types of location um that that you'd want to consider for this project. just just more information so that we could really get it, you know, get folks engaged um versus versus just you know debating it up here a few questions. So that's that's my question. Could we bring this to committee and get more information?

Well well I'll address it wasn't so much um it was brought up in a previous meeting that um at that point we are on a tight deadline. So after consideration with legal talking with the Georgia Veterans Association to get anou to utilize their 5013C. So the Georgia Veteran Foundation model we we needed to move fast because it had been brought up in a previous committee in a previous meeting. Um it was thought believed that it could go forward and this is just signing theou with the concept of trying to raise the money. That's the first step before we start talking about possible locations and jobs. And I think it was important that we first figure out a way to raise the money. We do have to raise it relatively quickly or at least a large portion of it. And it was, as Mr. Henley said it was a project that um I'm going to say that I believed we would all be very supportive of in the conception and at that stage it was to get rolling to be able to raise the money in a manner that would protect any donor that did give money and also protect the city. So in working with the Georgia Veterans Association and the uh state attorney general's office that was this was moving forward in this manner. May I clarify?

Council member Hall.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to clarify uh just on behalf of the residents of Roswell. Um we keep saying we need to raise the money. You're you're using the word we. I just want to be clear. Who's we? donors who support the concept of host of building a brand new long-term care facility for 126 veterans within the city of Roswell. You do not have to live in Roswell. There are I believe there are multiple people who care about this project. Be it at companies, be it at other foundations, not the city of Roswell will not raise nor donate any money. But I believe I know my donor base would be willing to donate some. I would hope many of us would touch those people who have either supported our campaign, who support our veterans, and this is a way in my opinion to show long-term support for people who need that support here in Roswell where it's much needed. So I say we as a collective, we as a community, maybe that's the community would do this versus we the seven people sitting on this dis. So, there's a separate 501c3 set up that is just basically going to do the fundraising and they would come um to events in the city and and ask for funds for this just like other 501c3s.

They could, but they are a long-term how long has the Georgia Veterans Foundation been in existence? It's not something that is being set up specifically for this project. It is a arm of the Georgia Veterans Association. How long have they been in existence? I

many many years. So they they have their own uh financial arm and I should have mentioned they they entered into thisou last Thursday at their meeting. So they have um a separate arm that's the charity uh that has been helping with funding shortfalls for them and sort of augments their uh budget that's given to them by the general assembly each year. So they've been very active in the veterans community. I know Mr. Hanley can talk to that. I I know you were deeply involved with that as well. Yeah. Specifically, you already have 501c3, right? Correct. Yes.

Um to your point, Miss Hall, uh Councilman, um we were waiting on edge to see what the legislature would do. This came to the mayor very late. Mayor had to make decisions that within days, not even weeks, of let's just at least take this concept and run with it. get anou so we can communicate with the state. It's really all anouou is. Sorry, John. So Joe, um but so without quick movement from the mayor, like I said, there there's one application in the state of Georgia. So we waited to see what the legislature would do. Unfortunately, legislature kicked the can down the road again. I'm lucky enough to get a meeting with the mayor and say, "Hey, let's do this." There's still an open window to get that application in. Nobody else did. The state's already been approved for it. So, you've got the approval from the VA. You got the legislature failing on it. This isn't the first time. And then you got the mayor stepping up. This all happened about 10 days. So, and I and I will give you and I will give counsel. Um the uh Georgia's Department of Veteran Service just finalized some nice slicks and some details uh booklets and so forth that we can get to you and all the council but more than that I mean I'm not a super superme on this. I'm not clinical, of course, but um we can certainly uh get you more information maybe for the next meeting, but to to the mayor's point, literally 10 days to just try to, you know, get a conversation going to get an application in to the to the VA. That's pretty impressive that fast. So, I commend Joe and the department and the attorney general's office for turning it around so fast.

No, and we certainly appreciate everything that you do. My husband's a veteran and I support veterans in every aspect of the way. I'm just sitting here on the dis and I'm representing 94,000 residents who like to be informed especially if there's finances involved and and if there's anything on the hook. So that that's what my job is over here and I respect that. But there's 500 cities in this town. Is not an accident that it's we got a shot at it. I'm here the mayor here. mayor stepped up and I'm very very grateful that um we're the only game in town and we got a chance to get it right here

and and I I understand I know you're a resident but did um Alfreda is very strong in John's Creek and veteran support they did not have they don't have me there pushing them bullying everybody and say let's get this it's good for our town and it's good for our city but um like I said the window was small we couldn't we couldn't I couldn't sit down with the mayor until I knew the legislature was going to do. Um, and once I found out, you know, it's election year, they they they all strung me along to the last day that thinking I was going to get thinking we were going to get it. So, we didn't get it this time. Um, so this is an option. And you have some materials slicks and

I will get Yes, ma'am. and and those have an idea of what you're trying to build, what it's going to look like, details on the jobs, the type of

we have architects uh who just did beautiful renderings literally finalized probably three days ago. And um again to the timing point, the the approvals, the architect, the application, the architect again doing finalized, all of this had to happen between the legislature finishing and the application process being concluded. Um and then once that happened, you know, this is the next, you know, moment. But I'm going to get you everything you need, all of council, as much detail and organized as possible so you can get it out to the residents in any way that you all see is uh most appropriate. And I'm I'm sure even the commissioner would, you know, probably entertain coming up here and talking to you all at some point. But um any any questions at all, Christine? Sorry, Councilman. Reach out anytime. I'd be happy to follow up with some detailed uh answers.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Sal. Yeah. So, to channel my inner Will will Morland. So, to wrap this up, uh this is basically what you're saying is that this is the kickoff. In other words, they can't raise money until we pass this. Is that the essence of what this this ask is? Correct. That's kind of where we got

we again the city through our legal was determined very quickly as you said that it would not be the city did not was not should not be forming a separate 5013C to protect the donors and the concept um where we were able to work very quickly and I would applaud our deputy city uh city attorney who got this done again very quickly and lawyers moving through some of this especially when it comes to any form of a financial um understanding was done probably some of the quickest we've ever seen it from state government. No offense to anyone in state government that's in the room right now having been there myself. Um, so it was very quick, but it is just we had to have this in place before we could even put anything out officially to the public um to start the process because we were not going to be collecting money without knowing exactly where it was that it was protected from those people who chose to donate to this project.

It is fortuitous that they had the 501c3 because that determination letter can take years, literally years. I'm going to say my recollection is probably about 10 to 10 years older or so if not older that I recall. But any other questions from council just council member Hall clarifying again and and I'm sorry you're just saying we are not going to be collecting money. You're talking about the foundation is not going to be collecting money. Is that correct? No, the foundation will be collecting money. The Georgia Veterans Foundation will be the ones collecting the money. We and we is the city of Roswell. We as the city of Roswell will not be collecting any money.

Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

I would hope we will be promoting the opportunity for people to donate to the Georgia uh Veterans Foundation for this specialized project special project in Roswell. That's what we hopefully will be doing. Any other questions from council members? Do I have a motion? Council member Brumley. Do I have a second? Council member Bon. All in favor, please raise your hand. Vote passes unanimously. Thank you. Next is the consent agenda. City Clerk Long, are there any speakers for the consent agenda?

Mayor, there are no speakers for the consent agenda. Does council have any comments regarding the consent agenda? I don't see anyone having questions. Do I have a motion? Council member Zach, do I have a second? Council member Philippy. All in favor, raise your hand. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Next is the regular agenda. City clerk Long, please read the first item.

Yes, this is item 10371, approval of a text amendment to articles 24.6, adoption of Roswell dredging assistance policy. Section 24.6.1, 6.1 dredging assistant assistance policy of the city of Roswell code of ordinances. This will be the second re reading presented by Brian Watson, director of environmental public works. Assistant city attorney Jeff Cusack. Please read the ordinance.

Under consideration tonight is an approval of a text amendment to articles 24.6 adoption of the Roswell dredging assistance policy section 24.6.1 6.1 dredging assistance policy of the city of Roswell code of ordinances is hereby replaced with the amended and attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and if approved tonight this is the second reading Brier would you present mayor I didn't know if you wanted to say anything sorry um since the first reading there have not been any questions I have not received any so um I'll just take any questions from mayor counsel that you may have.

City clerk Long, are there any speakers on this item? One speaker, Janet Russell.

Thank you, Janet Russell. Um, this is regarding the dredging. I brought this up before, but I don't ever I never got an answer. The dredging is about really storm water and all that stuff like we talked about with the different subdivisions that have problems and we're going to pay for a certain amount. Approximately 25% of our people get the water from the city of Roswell. The other 75% get it from Fulton County. Has anyone in this city pursued the idea of asking Fulton County to contribute to the dredging since it's their water and their sewer? Why do the people who don't get their water who do get their water from Roswell and not from Fulton County have to subsidize the dredging for the people that don't get their water from Roswell? I asked before and I never got an answer in private. It wasn't here because the question occurred to me after all that discussion of chering and this place and that place. Why are we bearing the burden of all of this when those people don't get their water or sewer from us? So, I would hope that somebody else would contact Fulton County and figure out how they can come up with some money. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers? There are no other speakers. Right. Do you want to present anything or just ask council if they have any questions? Just answering any questions that Does council have any comments or questions regarding this item? Council member uh Zach.

Hey Brian. Um this is not so much of a question. I think we did a good job of uh meeting the intention of what we wanted to capture and that's really a process change just to make sure we're able to budget correctly. Um the only kind of ask I'd have as we proceed forward like you know we came to what we thought was a good solution and I think as we go into this next year and maybe we don't get an application to look at it as a test period of the new process. So, just be aware of if anything weird comes up or some of the intentions not met or there's some timing issues that we didn't foresee um as the next application comes in. That's my only ask. Thanks, Mayor Pro Tim Visa.

Thanks. Uh to clarify, Mr. Watson, based off of Miss Russell's question, my understanding of water management between the city and the county is they provide well Fulton County provides roughly 70% of drinking water for residents. However, they do not provide water management services such as sewer, storm water, land use management related to um water itself. Is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. The city of Roswell, it's drinking water versus storm water. So, uh Miss Russell was referring to drinking water. This is a storm water issue. Understood. Thank you. Any other questions from council?

Do I hear a motion? Council member Hall. Thank you, mayor. Motion to approve um item number 10371, the second reading of the approval of the text amendment to articles 24.6, adoption of a Brazwell dredging assistance policy, section 24.6.1, 6.1 dredging assistance policy of the city of Roswell code of ordinances. Do I have a second? Council member Bramley. All in favor, please raise your hand. Item passes unanimously. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Mayor.

City Clerk Long, please read the second item on the regular agenda. Yes, this is item 10397, approval of a conditional use permit for a carriage house at 440 Houseway, ZUSE1225002. Presented by Jeannie Payton, planning and zoning director. Miss Payton, do you need some assistance? Okay. Yeah,

thank you for bearing with me. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Jeannie Payeyton. I'm the planning and zoning director. The case I have before you tonight is a conditional use for a carriage house located at 440 Houseway. What is a conditional use? It is a use that may be permitted with the within the respective zoning district only where approved by city council. In this case, the RS30 zoning district. Conditional use um is um permitted for a carriage house. Conditional uses are subject to all other applicable requirements of this UDC including any applicable use standards except where the use standards are expressly modified by mayor and council as part of the conditional use permit approval and section 13.4 from the previous um point I have later on in the slide. So this is a location map showing the subject property on house way. It's located at again 440 House Way on the north side of House Way, west of the intersection of House Road and Houseway. The property is zoned RS30 in the Windsor Forest subdivision within the suburban residential character area. The existing 2587 ft house is situated on a.7 acre lot. The proposed carriage house is 986 square ft. The extension of the driveway proposed for the carriage house is to be a pebble surface. Um, the carriage house is 57.9 ft to the rear of the main house and sits approximately 22 feet from the rear and I believe it's 22.4t from the side property lines. This is our zoning map. It shows the RS30 zoning district that this house is

located in. To the east is RS9, single family residential zoning, which is a more intense use. And across the street is RS18, again, more intense, smaller lots than the RS30 requirements. This is our future land use map showing that it's located in the suburban residential character area with neighborhood residential character areas nearby. Here's the proposed site plan and I have a zoomedin copy here. Um it shows the carriage house located again 57 ft behind the main existing house on the lot. Um the driveway extension goes off to the right and the 986 square foot carriage house is located on that rear portion of the property. Again, 22 feet from the rear property line and 22.4t 4 feet from each of the side property lines. Conditional use approval criteria is the five following questions. The use is allowed as a conditional use in the respective zoning district and this one is the use complies with applicable specific use standard listed in article 9 if any without granting of any variance. The applicant has not requested any variance. If you have questions about the specific use criteria, I can answer that. The use is compatible with adjacent uses in terms of location, scale, site design, hours of operation, and operating characteristics. It's a residential use, and a residential zoning district. Any adverse impacts resulting from the proposed use in the effective area will be effectively mitigated or offset. Um we don't anticipate any and um adverse impacts because of that residential use in a residential district and we can get into some other mitigation factors later on and that the city can provide

services while maintaining sufficient levels of service. This is a house that is on Fulton County septic with Fulton County Water. The planning commission heard the conditional use case for 440 houseway on April 21st. They recommended denial. They stated they believed the application was administrative in administratively incomplete with insufficient documents. The administrative incompleteness was related to a Fulton County Health Department approval of septic system designed for the proposed project. This is not a criteria for approval of a denial of a conditional use. At this point, I'm going to go back and explain one other thing about conditional uses. It is the first step for an applicant to take. So unlike an accessory structure, which is permitted, if you're using it as a carriage house, you have to come through this process. So that is a step that is required later on and proof of that is required by staff later in later reviews. Insufficient document. It was related to a site plan document presented for the case on which the survey of record provided a legal boundary note and recording note. Per legal there was no deficiency. This shows to the right um a picture of that note and an explanation that they are typical. Protect the surveyor providing the information. This is not a document that would ever be recorded. Therefore, that is not a problem. The underlying information provides scalable information for staff to review. So the con approval for the conditional use is recommended with the following uh condition of approval. Approval shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan received by the city of Roswell on February 24th, 2026. This ensures that the applicant is developing

substantially in accordance with the submitted site plan. You have any questions? I have some information about trees. Should there be any questions related to that? So, we can get to that.

Um, so, city clerk, are there any speakers for this item?

Mayor, there are two speakers. The first is Stephen Clark. Mayor Robisho, honorable council people, I have kind of a selfish concern. I'm a 44 year 44y year Georgia resident, 13 of which proudly in Roswell. My home is not directly affected by this, but my home, our home is one of 40 in the Darian Park subdivision. So imagine you own one of the three homes that are going to see this carriage house from their backyard. So imagine one of the uh homes decides to sell. I am suggesting that when they go to sell and this carriage house is visible that someone is going to offer them 10% less than what they really should be getting for their house. So let's say uh just for rounding up figures one of the houses is $600,000. They expect that and uh they get an offer of, you know, $60,000 less all because of a carriage house, you know, 22 feet from their back fence. Now, does this affect me? I believe it does. I believe it affects every single homeowner in Darien Park because when we go to sell our house, let's say after this is constructed, if it's constructed, what is the what is the real estate agent and the buyer going to do? They're going to look at the comps and they're going to see what houses sold for recently and it's going to affect my sale price. So, I'm taking a financial

concern to this. Everything else our more illustrious neighbors presented at the final meeting when this was rejected are probably more valid than what I'm talking about today. Finally, imagine it was your house and your house wasn't directly affected by the viewing of this carriage house, but you wanted to sell it and property values had gone down in your subdivision. Just think about that. That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Thank you, city clerk Long. Next speaker, Guy Skull.

Good evening, Madame Mayor and City Council members. Again, my name is Guy Skull. My wife and I are residents of Roswell residing at 3045 Darian Park Drive. We are the ones that are affected by 22 feet buffer on this map that you saw for almost 28 years with our property being the nearest property abudding the applicant's property. In addition, I am the current president of the Darian Park homeowners association. I and my wife are before you today requesting a deferral on the nearly 1,000qt accessory building unit at 440 House Road House, excuse me, ADU carriage house application, ZS ZUSE1225-0000002. Fulton County Environmental Health determines whether or not a lot can legally support a second dwelling on septic capacity and all required notorized documents are made available to the public. This is about public health, safety and welfare, transparency, and complete documentation. Number one, Fulton County must rule on septic capacity first. The property is 77 acres below the 1acre minimum required by a single dwelling on septic under Fulton County rules. A second dwelling requires a separate septic tank capacity allocation, which cannot be granted unless Fulton County approves it. To date, no septic capacity determination, approval letter, or written review from Fulton County has been provided. Because Fulton County has final authority, the city should not act until the county issues a clear written decision. Common sense sequencing was not followed. Given Fulton County's fundamental authority over septic approval, common sense dictates that the applicant should have been required to obtain a documented Fulton County decision before the application advanced through the city process. The simple logic sequencing would have been more consideration to the applicant, more transparent for the neighbors, more accountable for city staff, more protective of city council's

decision-making process. Proceeding without council, excuse me, proceeding without county's determination placed everyone in in a preventable bind. Fulton County septic standards go far beyond minimum lot size. It is important to understand that Fulton County septic rules involve far more than 1acre minimum. The minimum is only the first hurdle, not the last. Under Fulton County Environmental Health Standards, an ADU is treated as a separate residence, not an accessory structure. That means a county evaluates it as an additional dwelling unit with its own wastewater load, its own required drain field capacity, and its own compliance obligations. Even if this lot were a full acre and cleared, the first hurdle, the Fulton County would still apply a series of additional requirements including adequate soil conditions and percolation for two dwellings, sufficient space for primary and reserve grain fields, setbacks from structures, property lines and water features, protection of three tree canopy and grading limits that affect grain field viability, and demonstration that the existing system is functioning and sized appropriately. When these standards are applied transparently and consistently, a second dwelling on a 77 acre lot already non-conforming for the primary residence would almost certainly not be approved without major exceptions, variances, or a requirement to connect to sewer. This is why the Fulton County's determination is not a formality. It is a central feasibility question for the entire application. And it is why the city's failure to recognize that the property is on septic, not sewer, is so fundamentally impactful. Two required notorized documents were missing from the public pack in the notorized handwritten zoning application. This document, the legal foundation of the request was not included in the public packet and the notorized affidavit confirming owner occupancy. The affidavit required for any ADU confirming the owner will occupy one of the units was also missing. These emissions prevented residents from verifying the applicant's warrant statements, compliance with owner occupancy requirements, and the completeness and accuracy of the filing.

Transparency requires these documents be available before any hearing raising serious health, safety, and property concerns. Neighbors who directly who are directly about I'm sorry, neighbors who directly abut the property express concerns that septic overload on any already non-conforming lot. Loss of privacy with the ADU only 22 feet from property lines. Ours specifically, removal of significant tree canopy, increasing storm water and erosion risk, potential rental or commercial use with no binding conditions offered, sewer access requiring easements across neighboring yards with with which residents oppose. These concerns are grounded in the physical constraints of the lot and the public health, safety, and welfare implications of adding sewage load to the unders unders sized septic system. Additional errors and incomplete information. Residents discovered that the site planned incorrectly, stated that the property was on sewer, not septic. No certified boundary survey was provided. Tree removal impacts were not fully documented and the owner's height statement of the of the C carriage house conflicted with the submitted P plans. Why the sewer septic error is so impactful? Staff not recognizing that this is not on septic.

Sir, I'm going to I your time has run out. Am I wrong? Okay. Can I leave this uh copies with you all? Um if you want to leave them Sure. Thank you. There you are. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other speakers? Other speakers. Does council have any questions? May present. I'm going to ask one question. Is the applicant present in the room? Okay. No, we don't.

I'm sorry. Would you like to speak, sir, at this time? Yes. Please, please come up to the mic and state your name, sir.

Good evening. My name is Kelvin Walls. I reside at 440 Houseway. Um, I've resided there for the past 14 years as well. Um, I'm building this carriage house as an in-law suite for my in-laws who basically they one is 86, the other is 82. They are no longer able to their mobility is impacted. So to make it easier for us to care for them, we we wanted to build an in-law suite at the rear of the residence. Um, they live approximately 45 minutes away. So trying to get to them and to care for them, especially if my father-in-law falls with Atlanta traffic, unfortunately, is is a little taxing. Um, I guess as far as the application, as Miss Paul has stated, I presented and gave all of the information that was requested. Um, I've already applied for the variance from Fulton County for the sewer for the later additional packet after this because as she stated, this is a two-step process. I have to get the variance and then I have to actually apply for the building permit. So that is that is already in in the works. Um as far as people that are impacted, all of the pe all of my neighbors in Windsor forest, everybody on house way and all those that live on fall staff, none of them are here. They're all none of them oppose anything that I I asked. I've walked around the neighborhood and asked, "Hey, do you have a problem with it?" It's only the people that are affected that are here that are in the neighborhood on the other to the east and they're newer neighborhood. Winds of Forest where older neighborhood most of those homes are on sewer not on septic and they've been established in that res though that neighborhood has been there

for approximately far as I know over 50 60 years. I actually bought my house from the first occupant of the neighborhood. So, my house is probably the oldest house in that neighborhood. Um, I haven't changed anything. Um, this is the only I if I if I had it my way, I wouldn't be here. But I have in-laws and I I love my father-in-law,

so I'm here. Um, as far as the trees and the canopy, um, an arborist came out today and he looked at the trees and the canopy and he said, "The trees that are proposed to be taken out need to be taken out. Not so much because I need to build a house there. Two of those three three of those trees actually have a fence growing through them. And because they have fences growing through them, they've affected the health of those of those trees. The others are pine trees that would the root system may not affect the house. However, where they're standing once the house is built, they're going to be so close that if a powerful storm came in, they would knock those trees down on top of the house once we start disturbing the ground. Um, that's about all I have. Thank you, sir. Does council have any questions? Uh, Mayor Pro Timb. Uh, first and foremost, uh, Miss Payton, can you go back to the slide that shows the surrounding parcels? this one. Uh, my understanding is based off of the existing zoning, let's pretend that we just drew this houseway building into the adjacent zoning, which is what is this RS9?

So, if we were to draw that into RS9, adding this parcel, pretending that it was a separate parcel, wouldn't that just match the surrounding zoning based off the density and the intensity of land use? So you're saying that it's about the same size as the Darian Park? Yeah. So if you look at the density of the parcel directly to the top right corner of the houseway parcel corner Darian Park Drive, each of those parcels on Darien Park Drive are going to be at least half the acreage of this houseway parcel. Correct. Yes.

So in other words, it would just match the intensity of land use usage to those that are in Darien Park. Correct. like these are required to have 9,000 square foot lots where RS30 has to have a 30,000 square foot. Correct. So for all intents and purposes it would match the intensity of land use for the surrounding areas. Um and then additionally can you go to the slide that uh was provided to planning commission for the parameters of their decision. So this is a conditional use approval criteria. My understanding is planning commission was only supposed to assess this decision from their perspective on these and only these five conditional use criteria. Correct.

That is what the planning commission's role is. Got it. And so the the input that they provided on the basis of their denial is outside of the framework of this approval criteria. Correct. Yes. So in other words, I'll I'll put this in super layman's terms. This ain't their job and that they were trying to make a decision outside those parameters. Correct. Yes. I mean they can ask questions and we try to provide an adequate answers for information that comes up during the meeting just like you would have questions but this is the criteria that they should base their decision on.

Understood. So it was outside the realm of their expertise for all intents and purposes. Um however it is up to mayor and council to make the ultimate decision on if the conditional use is approved. Correct. And then to clarify again, Fulton County would ultimately do their review after the city and it's still contingent upon Fulton Countyy's approval for the land disturbance permit. Correct.

Yes. Yes. They will not be able to get, you know, ultimately even a certificate of occupancy without the Fulton County process being taken care of. So, um, for this kind of project, I believe we have a combo permit. So, it's LDP and building permit at the same time. So they could not get successfully through that process to have anybody move in without that criteria being approved by Fulton County and it's just not something that we require at this stage.

Understood. Thank you. Before proceeding, my turn back over. Um I will just go ahead and preface this with my own opinions before we vote. Um just here in the city of Roswell, cost of living has gone through the roof for anybody here. um whether it's an aging population, people's parents, kids graduating from college, not able to move back home. So the understanding of in this situation, a family is trying to address that issue within their own terms and their own abilities by providing uh housing for an aging population which is their family members. Um I am sympathetic to the neighboring community. Um I understand if Viewshed could potentially impact house prices. Um my very uh non-academic research shows that Darian Park homes have actually doubled in equity value in the last six years. Um so I understand that if you're concerned about maybe a slight impact to surrounding home prices for those three parcels that are adjacent within the fed. Um however I've also looked at academic articles. Fun fact, housing is something I'm really into. Um that's also what I'm working on my PhD on. There's no academic reviewed articles that would imply that housing prices adjacent to a home on this size parcel would be impacted by the addition of an accessory dwelling unit or in this case a carriage house. So because of that um I'm inclined to vote in favor of the applicant. Thank you.

Any other questions? Council member Phillip, can you go back to the slide that shows uh some of the trees?

Yeah. So, um I think in particular concern like the the pine trees are not adding a lot to um our environmental impact here. Um but the oak trees were of concern. There were two oak trees, a 22 inch and an 18 in. Um, and I I think as um the applicant just mentioned, we did get some opinions back from the arborist today that indicated that those trees, regardless of this carriage house, would need to be removed. Is that correct?

Um, that is correct. We were provided pictures that showed the fence growing through the trees. So, the analysis was reviewed by and the the documents were reviewed by our arborists. The 18-inch oak is not considered a specimen. Therefore, it could be taken down by the applicant without any kind of um recompense is what we call it. Uh replanting of trees. The 22in oak in healthy condition would require that recompense and the applicant has provided a plan for that. Um he narratively could you stop at the picture with the fence?

Yes. provided buffer options to make up for the tree. Um but we've later in digging through um finding out more about these trees have learned that the condition. So his arborist had come out for the required documentation for the conditional use um documents that are required with the application and provided a kind of rudimentary beginning analysis of what was there um an establishment of the diameter breast height and the fact that one of the oak trees would be specimen in good condition. Okay. And okay, could you can move on to that the next picture? I just I had

this shows the trees that are proposed to come down. Again, only the 22inch oak on the rear property line is specimen and would require a replanting plant if that tree is in healthy condition. Um, and I also put what the city arborist approved. She approved with conditions the plan and with the following criteria for conditions. They had stated they would do 14 Leland Cyprus and a double border along the rear property line, which is twice as many as would be required if recompense was required in this scenario. And she just asked that he not plant leeland cypress that he finds a more appropriate um species.

Yeah. So according to our native plant resolution, then the trees that will be replanted there must be at least 80% native as is stated here. Yes. Yes. So actually we could be doing something better for our environment with these new plantings replacing the pine trees with some more um important trees. The 14 trees provoke pro I'm sorry proposed will provide a better buffer than the existing oak and parti potentially take away some of that visibility as they develop.

Yes. Um so I I do want to reiterate again um this question about um when Fulton County should be providing their approval. The process is for us to give this conditional use and then it will go to Fulton County and they will they will make their evaluation of the septic and everything. I know that this was just said but can we say this one more time? So, so the reason our process is in the order that it is is that sometimes during a conditional use process, council can approve conditions that require the plan to change. Should that happen, then the time they've spent getting that approval is for not and they have to go back and get a new approval. So, we would not require it at this stage. We require the information going into it. um to know that them knowing what what our conditions do is it sets them up for success in the ne next step. So they know that that's going to be required. So at the final um review it would be required.

That was very helpful narrative. Thank you. Um and can you go back to the slide on the land survey please? and this um boundary note that's here that caused um some confusion or some concern. Can you speak to that a one more time please?

Yes. So this professional who stamped the plan um this is off of the bigger site plan shown here. You can see the stamp and the notes there to the right bottom corner. He provided these notes because he didn't do the initial survey and surveyors are responsible for the work they do in my understanding in perpetuity forever and ever. They can be retired and they can be held responsible for the work that they do. So he's providing this as protection. I didn't do the underlining boundary survey. I'm being transparent about how I got the information. I'm laying the site plan of the proposed development over top of this. And I this is not of a recordable quality because he would not put his name behind the recording of this document. Site plans for these types of cases are not recorded. Plats are recorded.

Okay. The appropriate land use survey either exists somewhere or will exist somewhere. This is the appropriate for this project. Okay. Um just one more thing that I would like to point out or actually two more things. So, um, according to the conditional use that we'll be approving, the, um, the size of the structure can't be more than a thousand square feet, and we're at 986 square feet. What protections do we have, um, for any scope creep or anything that might cause that square footage to increase?

Again, building permitting. So, all staff from all departments review it at every stage. So planning staff with the planning um use criteria that has those regulations are also part of review when the building permit comes through. And so we ensure that anything in the code that is relevant relevant to planning and zoning is met. So those use criteria plus any conditions you were to add. And then um one other the rear setback is just two feet off the cushion. And we will have the same protect. The rear setback is uh what 18 ft and it needs to be 20 or 20 ft and it needs to be 22.

It's 22. So it's 2 feet in from where it could be. Yes. We only have to go all the way to give though, right? Yes. But often properties meet those building that is a building setback line is you can build to that line. Right. So he's two feet further back from where he could be. He has two feet margin of error.

Yeah. True. Okay. Um I think those are um all of my questions and um I would just like to say that um I did a bit of research on um the home values as well and I would agree with Council Member Bon's assessments. Thank you,

Council Member Bramley. Yeah, I think I think I was going to say the same thing about Fulton County that you know um I understand that maybe there's a miscommunication from the residents as to how the process is that has to come to us first and then Fulton County and I wouldn't presume to know what the county is going to say regarding the septic tank because that doesn't fall under us. If they end up saying no, then that's up to them. But I really would not feel comfortable um voting on this approval or not based on that because that is not what we're here for. As um all the other concerns have been mentioned. The only thing um because I was going to ask about the setback but you already did and as you said it has two feet of buffer in one side and seven because the other one is 15 feet so it's like seven feet on the other side. So I think it's the size is actually appropriate as well. Um I heard that there was a concern that this is going to become a commercial property but this is in a residential zony so that cannot be

that would not be permitted. Okay. Thank you. Council member Hall.

Thank you mayor. Um yes. So this was um I spent quite a bit of time on this as um we have discussed in in in a prior meeting uh at the planning commission. Um I did listen to the planning commission meeting twice. It was roughly about an hour this this item. And um I I I do have I I have several concerns. And um my concerns are um the remedy and the recommendation from uh planning commission. Basically going to the staff recommendation um for for this item is approval of the conditional use with the following condition. that the approval shall be in substantial compliance with the site plan received by the city of Roswell on February 24th. Well, as we have been made aware, that's an erroneous document. erroneous in in the sense that that document is um indicating that it's on sewer and later uh it was discovered that it was on septic and um that's I think what led to a lot of conversation and um some of the confusion. Uh the other part that I also I looked through the packet and I was not able to see the application and the planning commission's job is to vet the application. So I can understand where um basically why they did what they did as a a as a remedy that's that's available to them. now listening to that uh for a couple hours at different times because you pick up different things. Um I also um spent quite a bit of time in that in Darian Park. So if people saw a car driving

around and a random person walking around, that was me. I didn't identify myself to any of the homeowners, but I did want to uh take a good look and um and and and really understand what the homeowners were concerned about. And I I basically can see what they're concerned about because they're RS9. Uh they do have um smaller lots. They're closer to the back line. Uh they abut an RS30. Um, if the septic tank wasn't there, I imagine that the structure would be not as far back, but it's being placed as um far back as it possibly can uh to comply within the coding of the UDC uh codes. And and because because of that, it's really affecting going to affect the quality of life of these neighbors of of the people and and conditional uses are put in. The reason we have a conditional use, it's conditioned upon hearing all of hearing from all the community, hearing from the neighbors, um discussing it up here with with our colleagues, uh to see if if this conditional use is warranted. And one of the conditions, uh condition number four, uh any adverse impacts resulting from the proposed use of the affected area will be effectively mitigated or offset. And I do not believe that um trees uh taking down mature trees, the amount of forestry that's going to come down and being replaced by other trees and the number of years uh that it will take for those to uh repopulate. I I do not believe that that is a mitigation. Um the the other um the other thing is

um just in I learned this through the planning commission listening through the planning commission um the existing home itself um has a unfinished and studded out um rooms and and and bathrooms. I mean, there's there's opportunities there's other opportunities for increased housing in this situation versus building a complete separate uh building in in a position that just um really um hurts so many other property owners in in the area. So, for those reasons, I'm not inclined to um support this.

Council, wait. Council member, wait, was there one over here? Council member Zach, I don't know if you council member Zach, this might be a point of clarity and I I just want to make sure my understanding is right. Uh the conditional use is five items that staff said, "Yep, this is made by um the plan following exactly what's submitted." Correct. Yes. An applicant, yes, can apply for a conditional use. And then as far as the planning commission, did they identify any of those five items from the conditional use to say the one of these items weren't met as part of the denial? No.

Okay. And then this might be a loaded question, but I'm kind of curious. If we have the code that allows this and it met the conditions and either the planning commission or staff is saying it did not, what do you think the intention is for it going to council? And I'll help you with that if that because I'll give you what I think the intention is and you could tell me if I'm wrong. What I think it is is there has to be an element that couldn't get codified or there has to be a temporal element that when the code was written, something changed that couldn't get codified at that time and now cancel council is looking for edge cases when it comes to this point in the process. Otherwise, I think it's codified and then it wouldn't come to our perspective. So, that's my perspective. I'm curious, do you have alignment or disagree?

Um, uh Joe can maybe support me on this, but the planning commission is not a quasi judicial board. the way that the border zoning appeals when they make a decision it's final. The planning commission's entire role is to vet cases um you know per the criteria that is included in the staff analysis so that a final decision is made by mayor and counsel. So while I understand what you're saying I think that's the essence of where mayor can and council can con kind of consider a bigger picture. But maybe this is me kind of adding to your narrative.

The decision has already been made in the code to allow carriage houses as a conditional use in the zoning district. That's not a question that is up for debate with this case.

Understood. And I I guess I'll frame it in more of a statement at this point. Um, I think for it to to come to council because to your point it's in the code and it's met the conditions and it hasn't been presented that one of the five hasn't been met by either the planning commission nor staff that the only decision I can make as a council member is is there an element here that couldn't have been codified and has there been something that changed since the code has been written and I'll say at least at this moment I don't think that's presented. So that's why I'm leaning towards approval. C mayor prom a couple things to clarify the sewer septic situation to put this in the most basic terms as possible. My understanding based off what you said the original survey that was done in do we know what year? Um, yeah. I'm not sure right now. I could probably

recently, not recently. Probably further back than recent. So, it was an underlying zoning. Um, I noticed that some of the notes reference the like house. So there was a note that was talked about and clarified in planning commission that is part of the bottom part of general notes that made an erroneous statement about septic and sewer. Well, the erroneous statement wasn't done on the existing survey. The erroneous statement was done on the original survey. Correct. Um I cannot verify that one way or another. were working it.

So with this one, the person who stamped it though said that they didn't feel comfortable because the original survey that they were doing the overlay on was incorrect. Correct. We're talking about that entire scenario is related to the boundary pins and the boundary survey. Got it. Okay. So not necessarily the land survey itself, just the boundary survey then. Yeah. Not necessarily the site like this would no longer it's an underlying survey and then it once you add proposed development it becomes a site plan. Understood. So in this case it wasn't necessarily that it was intentional that the surveyor was trying to withhold information that it was a septic or sewer line. It was just a mistake that was clarified by staff. Correct. Yes.

Y'all did your job. Yay.

I mean could we have caught it and asked that to be corrected? Yes. Um, could we have noticed the language in a way that compelled us to feel it needed be corrected? Yes. Um, but there was not a question we statements are made both in applications and in hearing settings that are not correct information or accurate or precise information. Therefore, in our presentations, in our analysis, we try to cut through the the matter, you know, and give you where the criteria for decisions lie, where the the use criteria regulates where the boundaries um and the setbacks are, where height is required. So,

that's our perview. So, in other words, because septic is Fulton Countyy's purview, that would have been something they would have it's something that will be taken care of when the proper staff person ensures that that sign off has been received, not something that's up for kind of a public hearing debate.

Understood. So, in other words, it's not at this level. Um, and then unrelated to you, uh, back to opinions since that's what we do on the DAS. I understand the concern of impacts to quality of life. Um, personal opinion, I don't think it's an impact to quality of life if I look out my window and I can see something else on someone else's private property. However, it is a quality of life issue when somebody's aging parents can't go up and downstairs because planning commission made the administrative decision that they need to be in a basement as opposed to an at level ground level dwelling uh that was permitted within our code that mainly just comes to council for our approval. So, it really is a quality of life issue for the applicant. I disagree that it's a quality of life issue for surrounding people who like to look at other people's yards. Um I'm of the frame of mind that we are running a city and not an HOA. Thank you,

Council Member Sal. Thank you. So the first question I have is you mentioned the the tree rec uh recompens recompense. Recompense. Yeah, the tree recompense. So uh um and I know that's not mandated, but did you make it a stipulation of this approval? Um it it actually is regulated like the applicant submitted the information in this particular instance though

and in this instance at this stage it was determined that the 22 in diameter oak was a specimen quality and size. Therefore the recompense would be required but it would only be required at half of what the applicant proposed. So we did not add a condition um because that is a code requirement. So the the arborist clarified the situation to say that seven of the cypress proposed is all that would be required per the code but the applicant has proposed to and you said the arborist had an issue with the cypress versus something else.

Just the species of cypress is not deemed a healthy. Can we stipulate that in the in the approval? So she stipulated in her conditions of approval. So at LDP he would be required to follow through with a different species. And what about the number? Um that is not regulated unless you require 14 rather than the seven. Seven is required. And I will clarify that point. If the tree the 22inch oak is deemed to be um unhealthy, no recompense will be required. That's correct. Right. So, but we would like to stipulate it. I believe in this particular case because otherwise there's no tree requirement.

Well, there's requirements. They've just met them. How? There's no buffer requirement. You're using the trees in this scenario as a buffer to meet the needs of someone claiming that there is a requirement to buffer the intensity of a carriage house from their property and there are no buffer requirements for carriage houses on RS30 lots against RS9. The requirement lies in that we have a tree we call specimen in our code and we're going to lose a healthy tree. So, but for that there would be no tree requirement. Yes.

Okay. H that's news for me. Okay. Uh but it is stipulated at this moment to the tune of the number that uh the arbor said the right. So right now without an added condition the applicant will be required if the tree is deemed healthy to plant seven trees and um he has said he would plant 14 but we did not suggest that condition um and I think I got lost in the question but no we have not conditioned. Could you ask your question again? I think I got Yeah, that that's what I I would I would like to, I guess, is what I'm saying.

You can you can do that. Like you you have the right to add conditions to the conditional use. I'll mark that as a star. We'll maybe come back to that one in a second. What staff doesn't try to do is condition things that are already required by the code. What conditions are for is to increase the regulations of understood only appropriate. this particular condition is at risk

because it may be a dead tree anyway. So there would be no requirement whatsoever and I think I don't think that that's what the applicant wants or certainly the residents. And so I I I would like to come back to that. I don't know if that's amending the the motion or what that would require, Joe, but that's that's number one. The second thing I have is, you know, I I hear a lot of talk about the planning commission and its mandate and what their relationship to you is. And you said something pretty interesting to me because I want to really focus on this. You know, they are indeed to to my mind and I said this in clo in when we spoke about it on three and three and I'll say it again and that is they certainly are are requested by the council to bird dog and ask questions. And one of them in particular is the vetting of the completeness of the package. And you said I wrote it down. I don't know if I'm quoting you correctly, but you said that they their requirements they're they're limited with to within the limits of what staff asks of of the planning commission. Is that what I heard?

Um I if I stated that I meant the ask in the request. So staff doesn't ask. We only administrate the code. you know, it it is not an opinion that's being brought forward from anything other than a professional level of analysis of the code that is regulated by mayor and council. Okay. So, so to play that back to you, you say you're you're responsible for the completeness of the package as presented to the uh planning commission and their job is to work with you to make sure that it is indeed complete and accurate.

I did not state that. I don't believe Okay. So I don't believe the application was incomplete. There has been a wholesale change of our permitting process that requires applicants to provide all of that documentation embedded online. And we presented the document that is printed off from that new system. If we need to con continue to improve the process to try to work with the software company that we're working in our permitting process with to get better information based on what is requested. We can continue to do that. But there was nothing missing as stated from this application. We simply don't get a paper copy. And this application was kind of half and half where he provided because of when it came in kind of a signature on an old page. And so we've been working with applicants to scan in what we can, provide what we can, but the information now gets fed out of the the system into an electronic format. And so planning commission felt like that wasn't adequate.

So the dog ate my homework. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. Uh, so but so you're saying that the resident is wrong that there was indeed there was public access. I can't remember exactly what document he said, but but a required document in his view and the public's view for this purpose of this conversation with the planning commission and with you guys was missing. Are you saying he is incorrect in that statement? Um, I am based on our new system. I understand where he's coming from. Um we used to get a paper application in that was scanned and provided as part of the package. So it was was it present was it presented at the planning commission or not?

We we presented the new version of that which is an electronic spit like the applicants now or staff as we help people go into the system and enter all the information that they used to put on a paper application. So we no longer have the paper application for notary. I don't know Joe it are planning commission required to verify the notary signatures on I don't think that was the question and and I think just to clarify the you cannot consider or the planning commission could not consider this application unless those fields in the new system are actually filled out and completed and the application that the application quote unquote is deemed complete.

Yes. So every every single field that was required in the old in the old application is required in the new application and that was actually filled out with this one. Yes, it's just electronic now. So there's no physical signature. We do have an owner page that is submitted, but other than that, everything that used to be a paper document is all electronic. I didn't know we were going to get into an it discussion, but I I want to say I don't think that the resident's point was that a signature was missing. I think it was a document was missing and that's that was the point that was made from the dis.

Well then if it was the document being the application he stated the signatures that where the applicant signed the application verifying that the information is correct. We don't have that anymore. It's electronic. Okay. All right. We'll put my pencil down on that issue then. We accept we accept digital signatures. So that's part of the moving over. Y'all seem to be focused on the signature and I am not. Oh, well, we heard notorized. So, that's why I apologize. I think he said it was missing alto together, but I I I may have misheard. I'll go back and listen to this. There there was no application and the form that it used to be in there was a print out from the system that was present at the

present that planning commission deemed as not appropriate. And the discussion ensued about how, you know, I can continue to seek ways to get it printed off in a way that they will eventually find acceptable.

Okay. Well, yeah. So, to my point, you know, there are things that the planning commission does that I do not do and which is one of them is to understand whatever IT shortfalls we may have that need to be remedied. I would say that that's perfectly a public service for them to do. Uh the other thing that's a requirement I believe uh from the planning commission is they are one of the forums which uh the public input can be had and the impact stated and raised for this conditional use is part of that process and I think that that's appropriate and good and I think that's part of the reason that this whole kurfuffle you know this it does say sewer versus septic I think that brought up that issue. I don't know that that it would have been brought up otherwise but that was part of the reason this was part of the conversation with the planning commission and I personally see that as part of their job is to vet out all of the issues that are germanine to the application and that certainly is one uh the third thing is uh you know I know that we cannot make it a conditional use I understand that that the uh resident uh commit to non-renal But the applicant can certainly do so voluntarily. And I think that that would be a great uh uh u shall we say comfort to the impacted residents if he would agree to do so. He can he can do that. He can do that voluntarily for sure. So So I I'm going to vote to either continue this or deny it myself. Thank you,

Council Member Hall. Thank you. In planning commission, there were um two residents that wrote in. Do you have those letters? Um not with me. No. I apologize. I do not I did not bring them up with me. Thank you,

Council Member Bradley. Um so after listening um it just seems like like you said everything that was needed for this is approved um and the resident is the applicant is um is willing to go above and beyond on some of these issues but I think requiring him to go above and beyond the code is punitive and it just seems that we are just doing selecting just one person to have a specific changes instead of you know going with what the city requires. So that's that's my only concern on that. That is punitive. Council member Philippy,

sorry I got a little turned around in this exchange here. Were there any documents missing from the application or no? Um I don't believe there were. I I determine whether an application is complete based on the material that is submitted. the submission process has changedly since mid October

and and when you are referring back to the signature it's because they the planning commission stated that this particular document wasn't properly provided because the signature wasn't on it and you are explaining that that is now an electronic process so they wouldn't see that they they weren't claiming that the document wasn't there correct yeah I don't remember that being part of the conversation It it was a lengthy conversation and I felt like we had resolved it the night of planning commission because I understand we have frustrations with the new system

and we are continuing to check on report. It's called reporting um efforts that can be improved to provide something. So it looks very different than what the old application looks like. And yeah, and I mean maybe it would be worth walking through the planning commission a comparison of old documents to new to help with that confusion. Personally, maybe Joe can intervene. I don't see that as planning commission's role. So, I mean, I'm willing to understand. Council member, so please wait till you're called on, sir. Council member cells.

Thank you. Um, so you don't see it as their role of vetting these packages. Is that what you're saying?

I I think planning commission is welcome to ask any question and make any recommendation to council, but I don't see it as their role to establish whether an application is complete. That is respectively my role and given to me in the code. So it's fine for them to ask questions. I am very transparent with the answers I give. we have not exceeded their expectations and I continue to talk to them about improvement that they would like to see in the process. But vetting an application as to whether it is complete or not in my opinion and legal can chime in is not the planning commission's role.

Now per the code the planning and zoning director is the one who determines whether an application is complete or not. That is that's specified in the code. Fair enough. And the planning commission's role is to do what then? It's to evaluate the case before them based on the factors that are listed in whatever that case may have. So if that is incomplete, then they should say nothing. In their view, it's complete in this specific case. No, in any case, but once it's deemed complete, it's h it has all the all the information to make a decision based on what is being asked for. staff isn't going to bring forward, you're not going to bring something forward incomplete if they can't make a decision based on that incompleteness. Correct.

Correct. Incomplete or inaccurate, I think, is also a stipulation. So, and we had a discussion surrounding the inaccurate information on the site plan, and I gave them an option that they chose not to take. Thank you, Council Member Zach. Sorry, I'm trying to figure this out. Um, kind of follow up on Al one of Allen's line of of thoughts and let me make sure I understand this correctly. So for the buffering because they there's a specimen tree if deemed it is going to be dead then the requirement of those seven trees would go away. Is that true? Is that the end?

So the trees are required as recompense of a healthy specimen tree, but their location is not required. There is no buffer required for an RS30 property that develops a carriage house adjacent to an RS9 property. There is no requirement.

Understood. Uh and I might be misunderstanding this, so bear with me. Tell me if I'm incorrect. that part of the plan is to put those seven trees, but the reason we don't codify it is because we we are believing that specimen tree would force those seven trees. So if true that it was dead, it's also true that those seven trees would no longer be codified to say this is required. Is that how I'm understanding? Okay, that is true. So if I wanted to make a motion, could I maybe this is a legal question to say even if the tree is dead, we still want to have those seven. I could Absolutely.

Okay. Um, cool. I don't know if we're at the point. Okay, we're not. Thank you, Council Member Hall.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, following back on Council Member Cells and um our attorney Cusack. So, planning commission's job is to accept an application that is deemed complete and accurate. And in a conversation that I had with our attorney, I asked, "What is the remedy if there is an obvious erroneous error?" And that answer is that the planning commission could defer it and have that corrected.

Absolutely. And that option was not made available. I believe that is incorrect. I offered that option to the planning commission that night based on the discussion about the verbiage on the This was the night of the planning commission meeting, April 21st. And when did you discover the error? It was brought to my attention just prior to the meeting.

Okay. We have continued. My issue is that we everybody makes mistakes. I mean, you know, we're all human. We're going to make a mistake. We're going to miss something. But what you do is you don't continue down the path. You go back to square one. So you go back and get a correct document, work off of the correct document. So I mean, especially when you're conditioning approvals on a in substantial compliance with a site plan that is effectively defective because that is the site plan you continue to use. That's just and and that's not they I'm I'm really looking at the conditional use and why we have conditional uses so that we could come out here and discuss how this affects everybody, the community, the neighbors that have to live with this. And that is the condition that I'm looking at that it's going to be their quality of life. There is no mitigating that. And this is all basically because we didn't go back to square one. Thank you,

Council Member Ramyster. Yeah, once again, I just I I would hesitate to make requirements aside from those from the code. Um, it's just seems that we have the code, maybe we can change it later so that we can do this, but just to make one exception in one case, it just seems extra. Thank you, Council Member Cells. That's why it's called conditional use.

Mayor Probes, I'm interested in making a motion including council member Zach's requirements to ensure that there's um adequate tree buffer.

Could you I'm sorry, council. Well, we need to Yeah, we need to write it and be very specific before you second anything, please. So, my understanding based off council member Zach's comments is that your expectation is that instead of using the rec recompense rule that the expectation should be that there are still is it seven trees that are to be provided whether or not the tree the existing tree is dead. The applicant has offered to plant 14 um adjacent or along I just need a number 14.

Love that. Okay. Uh motion to approve number 10397, approval of a conditional use permit for a carriage house at 440 House Way with the include or with the condition of planting the additional 14 trees by the owner. Applicant attorney's nodding so I feel like that's okay. Thumbs up. That's my motion. By applicant by uh by applicant by do you want to reread that or sir? Council member Zach second.

Okay. All in favor please raise your hand. Four. All opposed. Two. Motion passes. So do you want to reread exactly what? There was a approval approval of a conditional use permit for a carriage house at 440 Houseway Z US-1225-0000002 with the condition that a planting of an additional 14 trees by the applicant.

Thank you. Thank you. City Clerk Long, please read the third item on the regular agenda. Uh, yes. This is 10346, approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 9, use provisions, section 9.7, accessory uses, section 9.7.12, horse stable, non-commercial. This is the first reading. Also presented by Jeannie Payton. Wait, assistant attorney Cusack, please read the ordinance.

Under consideration tonight is an approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code of the city of Roswell by modifying article 9 use provisions. Section 9.7 accessory uses section 9.7.12 9.7.12 horse stable non-commercial is hereby replaced with the amended and attached year two and incorporated herein by reference and if approved. This is the first reading. Now,

good evening again. I got too excited. Um, the problem we identified is that horse stables non-commercial on residential properties are currently a permitted limited use on properties over 30,000 square feet that are zoned RS30, RS87, and AG43. There are five properties located in the city that are over 15 acres and are currently zoned RS18. RS18 regulations require a lot size of 18,000 square feet and the five properties are all over 653,400 square ft um more than 30 times that regulated 18,000 square foot size. The RS18 properties do not permit horse stable non-commercial as a limited use no matter how large the property is. So we are proposing a text amendment to allow horse stables non-com commercial as a limited use um in the use table it would change the use to limited and that um leads us as planners an approval process to the use standards in 9712 and we are proposing to modify the use standards to allow for um two scenarios. the existing one, the two acres for parcels in the AG43, RS87 and RS30 zoning districts and as a minimum of 15 acres for parcels in the RS18 zoning district. We also um considered the accessory building structures related to the keeping of horses and again split that into two scenarios. keeping the old language a minimum of 150 ft from any property zoned or used for residential purposes for the existing properties and then added a minimum of 100 ft for any

property zoned or used for residential purposes for the parcels in RS18 zoning district. Alternatively, an accessory building or structure related to the keeping of horses in RS18 zoning district may be located a minimum 50 feet from the property zoned for use zoned or used for residential purposes with the additional screening provided. A 40 foot planted buffer subject to 10.2.5 or a 20ft screening buffer subject to 10.2.5 2.5 and a six foot fence. So if you're 50 feet from the property line, you would need a 40 foot planted buffer or a 20 foot buffer and a sixoot fence. The planning commission heard the proposed text, sorry, edit um amendment on Tuesday, April 21st. They recommended denial. They stated they believe the case would be better suited as a reasonzoning for individual properties. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. Um it is split into two items on the agenda. Just so you recognize that um the item for the use table and then the item for the use designations. Do you have any questions? And I'll just say so the the next agenda item as well they they go hand in hand. It would need a separate reading because one amends the use table, one um amends the actual definition so or the provisions. Um so they would be taken separately but they're they coincide together or they they live together.

City clerk, are there any speakers on this item? There are no speakers. Does council have any comments or questions regarding this item? Council member Philippy.

Um, so I would just like to say that in listening to the planning commission meeting, I do think that they brought up a number of concerns that should be addressed and their recommendation of resoning would bring more transparency to this issue, which I think is something that we're all in favor of. um and it would give the other surrounding residents an opportunity to chime in. So, for that reason, I tonight will probably be going with the planning committee's um uh proposal, whatever recommendation. Thank you, Council Member Brley.

Um so, I disagree with that with, you know, this is this is the first public reading. We are in a city council meeting and there's going to be a second reading. So there's, you know, we are alerting the public, the neighbors and everybody. Yes, it says right here it's the first reading. There will be a second reading. So this will be something that is communicated to the public and to the neighbors and to the whole city twice. Council member Hall I saw all three up at one time. Sorry.

All right. Thank you, Mayor. Um, concurring with council member Philippi. Um I also it basically the concept is we are doing one broad swath and we're making um conditions for other properties that didn't ask for them. I think we're all in support of horses and and love horses and animals and and would love to see people that want horses to if they comply with these rules to have the horses. But there's one property requesting horses and that's that's what we should be looking at. And as far as the transparency part, just so for the public that's listening, there's two there's two processes. There's the reasoning and that's where you do have um transparency. You'll have a a a sign put up, the yellow sign that you see. granted the access um to this property is more off of uh Mountain Park than it is Roswell, but the neighbors, the u adjoining neighbors will be notified via postcards and have an opportunity. Now, yes, this is a public hearing, but as we've heard over the years, people say, "How come I didn't know about this until it was in after it was done after the city council meeting?" So, I um I would um support a reasonzoning of this of this parcel um versus doing a text amendment and then, you know, just making this an entitlement for all these properties that didn't even ask for it and their neighbors don't even know that it would be available to them. So, for that reason, I support um council member Philippy's suggestion.

Mayor Pretend Bum,

I firmly disagree. I actually think the amendment to the unified development code allows for more transparency because in the event of a reszoning it goes to the elected body which would be us and that's the seven that sit in front of them today. Hypothetically speaking one of the five five one hand five parcels that would be impacted by this would have to come before an elected body tomorrow eight years from now 20 years from now. That elected body might not agree with the exact same reasonings that we're providing. So that would be unfair that this one property would be able to have horses on 15 acres 15 acres of property as opposed to future residents being able to have the same precedent that we would be providing. So really it's an act of fairness to allow the other additional four four parcel owners. Um as well with the resoning you would actually be devaluing the property for the owner. It's currently zoned RS18. So theoretically that property could have been a subdivision. I have a feeling that's probably why it was zoned that way. It would also be asinine at best to reszone a property based off of one hanging Chad into the city of Mountain Park as opposed to the surrounding properties. When you do a resoning, you typically look at surrounding properties and see what matches. Um, there's no matches. It's RS18, so it matches for all intents and purposes as it currently exists. So if we were to reszone it, say agg, that would devalue the property and they would actually have less economic value for resell of their property as opposed to just allowing a couple of horses for private use as its current use. Um, lastly, as for the notification of the surrounding areas, we provide signage for resoning as notification as well. All frontage for this property is in the city of Mountain Park. So, City Mountain Park could really party about this reszoning, but anybody who's actually in the city of Roswell that this property abuts that would be able to come share their thoughts on it would they would not see that signage unless

they're doing laps around Mountain Park. Thank you, Council Member Sal. That's a good point. I hadn't thought about that. Um, could you go to the slide where you have the the changes in the usage? The one where you had the Uh, no. The one where you had the table. There you go. Um, do we have any RS30 or RS87? Yes,

we do. And, um, would the things that we're talking about this property being able to do, would they be by rights able to do it in a higher zoning category? No. It's also a limited use subject to the either even if this was reszoned, we'd still have to be addressing the issue of the of the of this. Is that what you're saying? Is about

limited uses are one step down from conditional uses. Applicants have to meet the limitations in section nine of the code to be approved. So we have to ensure as staff that they are meeting these limitations. So once if they were reszoned to R30, it would still be a limited use and they we would ensure that they met the regulations as they stood. Fair enough. Right. But but we're the that the horse these standards apply to RS30. We're just extending them to RS18. Is that what you're saying? So you could have horses on RS30 today, but they would have to still meet the limited use requirements of the Yes.

So why would it why would we not reszone it? What what is the what is the rationale for the course we took as opposed to reszoning it? The um person interested in having horses on her property that was zoned RS18 at the time of the real estate transaction um called into the planning and zoning office spoke to me actually and I did offer that as an option. um she got legal counsel and it went through David as a conversation where we met and we looked at both ways and it was determined that the text amendment was the better way. Okay. Thank you.

Council member Zach, would you be so kind to expand or expand upon um why the text amendment's better? because I I'll kind of give a little bit of my perspective of for this one property. I think what has been outlined and talked about makes sense, but I don't know about the other four. So that's where I'm kind of curious of from your perspective why the text amendment was a stronger way to go.

So from my perspective, I don't typically offer text amendments as a recourse. Um, I offer applicants to speak with their elected officials to talk about changing the code and getting support for such a thing. I completely educated the applicant on a reasonzoning application. It was based on conversation that came in through our legal department that the conversation started to be about how to handle this through a text amendment. I can see both sides of what are what's being said. I do feel like the applicant, if they were an applicant, would be put through scrutiny for requesting an RS30 zoning district when surrounded by RS18 and nearby subdivisions. That is in essence what some people will call spot zoning. We can debate that for days. But to singularly reszone a property um based on a need such as horses is you know there is a whole thought process behind that why it is not the appropriate the same way that it's being um presented that the opposite the text amendment is not the appropriate way. So did I answer

all options are good options is what I'm hearing. There can't be a bad choice tonight. Council member cells, we were having a bit of a sidebar here and Joe, we got a question for you. I I think I heard Jenny Jeanie correctly, but as we talked about it, um not so sure. If this were to be zoned, just to be clear, if if we were reszoning this to RS30, none of these amendments would be necessary. Correct. That's that's correct. Yeah. Okay. That's okay. So So and the surrounding properties are all of this size. Is that correct?

No, that is not necessarily correct. There are abuing subdivisions.

Okay. So to add some background, at the time that the zoning code was um amended in 2014, they changed the residential zoning districts from what they were um called out as before and designated them as RS18, RS30, A43, all of the different designations. So, a decision was made by a mayor and council at that time to take the list of properties and accept this 18.8 acre parcel as part of what was going to be zoned as RS18. That was over 20 years ago. So,

so Joe was in grade school. Yeah. I don't know if he was born,

but there is there is an essence of removing a right by forcing a resoning. So I I mean I don't want to get into legal conversations here when Joe is much better qualified to have that, but should this property in its RSZ RS18 proposed subdivision, they would just need to meet the RS18 regulations. And they've had that right for quite a while. Um and then they wouldn't be allowed to have horses if it reduced below the 15. That's why the 15 was chosen to narrow down what we felt was appropriate when these properties are likely adjacent to subdivisions and there are only five,

right? Um, yeah, the list here. Yeah, there three owners, five properties, one on Russell Road, three properties adjacent to each other on King Road. all um well two of them are over 20 acres, one is 16 and then one on Spring Hollow Court. I get your point about um how do you say it that uh we would be taking away a right that they have today. That is true. But we are substituting a right which they are specifically asking for. Yes.

Uh by that move. So I guess I'm sort of sixes and sevens about it myself. I don't know. You prepare a song. Council member Hall,

thank you. I was just clarifying on the map. Thank you. Um the the the access I understand the access is off of Mountain Park um road or or off of Mountain Park to the property, but that parcel actually borders uh Roswell Roswell other Roswell properties. I I'm not sure if that is um what the name of that neighborhood is back there, but it does border quite a few properties. I mean, all those people would not have any notification if we didn't do a resoning. Well, there was there is a notification process for public hearings related to text amendments, but it doesn't

Well, this is the public hearing. You know, I don't know how many people got a postcard and said, "Hey, come to this public hearing." That that's that's my point. Please wait till you're called on.

Council member Philippy. So, I I had asked some questions earlier today trying to figure out when the last time there were horses on this property. And the answer I got that said that that prior to this 2014 reszoning to RS18, it was RS1 from 2003 to 2014. And RS1 doesn't allow barns or horses either. Yeah. So, it was before 2003 since the barn was utilized or there were horses on the property.

That's not necessarily um accurate because a use can continue until it ceases. So if the person who owned the property at the time had horses, non-commercial, it could continue as long as the use existed with it once it ceases. We give a 90-day period that you cannot do a non-conforming use. So it could have Yeah. I'm not sure when it ceased, but it ceased more than 90 days prior to and we don't know if this is the first time this property changed hands since that.

It's my understanding that the longstanding property owner I think is recently deceased and that then it was it was a period of time before the house was sold. Okay. But we can't really identify the last time there were horses on that property based on what we know right now. No, but I can accurately state that it doesn't mean it was prior to 2003.

Understood. Yeah. I guess I just still get hung up on um on the notification for the surrounding residents, but I I do think Council Member Bon made a lot of um really valid points that I hadn't thought of either. So I I'm with you. I'm 67. I I believe our postcard notification process is 300 maybe 350 ft off the top of my head. So if that offers some clarity about how many people would receive a postcard. So they have received postcards.

No. No. I'm stating that should it come through as a resoning. The only people that will receive a postcard are those within 300 350 ft, which sometimes can be more limited than one would imagine. Would it be um would it be within our right or our ability to notify that within that radius before the second reading if we were to move forward with this amendment? If I was instructed to notify, I would. If I was asked questions about my opinion on that, I would have answers on that. Is that something you want to share now or later?

If you would like me to share. I think it's a dangerous thing to a road to go down because cities often make hard decisions about reszoning efforts. Um, one more recent that we had is eliminating tattoo and vape parlors. So, we did that through a text amen and vape shops. Um we did that through a text amendment. Um so we often have business owners call and say we were not notified of this. The public hearing process as determined in the code was followed. Property owners, property operators are not they they are they need to know the code. Just because they don't know the regulations on their property doesn't mean it doesn't apply to them. So that could be a dangerous situation to get in later on.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Bas upon that point, it's a slippery slope in policy when you begin to set the precedent of notifying people based off of text amendments. Um, not only from the example she gave of, I guess, the vape shops and the tattoo parlors. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to set this precedent now, that could be the expectation moving forward that we do this with any and every text amendment and then you would have say five years from now, somebody could file a lawsuit against the city saying, "Well, you didn't notify me, but you did notify people in this one instance in 2026." So, you have to be careful about setting notification precedents for surrounding areas. Council member Brumley,

I was just going to make the same point as Miss Bon that we were setting a bad legal precedent and I don't want to go that slope. Council member Hall. Thank you. Attorney Cusack, could you please elaborate on um the president setting and um the perhaps the idea of sending postcards between the first and second reading uh to those neighbors.

So this is ultimately a policy question for for the council to to answer. Um from a a precedent standpoint, there is that argument that why did why are you treating something differently? uh why are you treating a certain situation differently than what you were before? Um so I think that's something that can weigh on the policy decision that this body makes. But you are within your rights to set a policy if you would like to to go down this road. But there is that lingering question of you did this here, why didn't you do it for this one? So that's something that can be weighed, but that is a a policy decision for this body to make.

Mayor Prom Bon Last point that I'd like to make. I understand the concern about notifying surrounding neighbors about potential changes to the code that could impact if horses are on their property. But it begs a larger question for the elected body, which is ultimately what we're deciding tonight, is if a person who abuts a 15 plus acre property should have say as to whether their neighbor 15 acres away is permitted to have horses on their property. Again, I think we're following the slippery slope of running an HOA instead of a city, and I would much rather run a city by setting policy using that precedent.

Council member Hall, we're making this decision not for one parcel, but for five parcels, and the other four parcels are not asking for this um for this privilege of of having horses. Council member cells, I'll be happy to make a motion, but I would like to say that to me, my mind, this is a perfect example of what the planning commission does. They vet this stuff out. They obviously thought about this. They asked the same question that people asked up here and you guys came to a different conclusion. So, I think that's part of their role. So, would you like me to make a motion?

Any other question, comments? Council member Cells, please make your motion. I guess should I can I make it for both or do we need to do one at a time? One at a time. Oh, one at a time. One time. Okay. So, we're we're on number three. We're smoking now.

Just more me. I'm sorry. I so wanted to say nay on this issue, too, by the way. All right. Approval. I I I would like to make a motion to uh for the approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 9 use provisions section 9.7 accessory uses section 9.712 horse stable non-commercial this is the first reading do I have a second mayor prom in favor please raise your hand five all opposed Motion passes.

City clerk, city clerk loan, please read the fourth item on the regular agenda. Yes. This is item number 10347, approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 3 residential district section 3.4 allowed uses section 3.4.2 use table. This is the first reading. Also presented by Janie Payton. Assistant Attorney Cusack, please read the ordinance.

Yes. Under consideration is an approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code of Roswell by modifying article 3 residential district section 3.4 allowed uses. Section 3.4.2 use table is hereby replaced with the amended and attached here to and incorporated herein by reference. And if adopted, this is the first reading. Jean. Oh, your turn. Oh, this is the same. This is

This is just the use table. I'm sorry. I didn't know you wanted commentary. So, this is just the the this text amendment was split. There was a misunderstanding about how we should bring things through, whether they needed to be separate or together. So, this one came through separate based on when the conversation took place. So that is just what is showing here the use table where what you just discussed and approved were 9.7.12 the regulations this is just to amend the use table with the L for limited use does everyone okay city clerk long are there are there anyone that would like to speak on this item

there are no speakers council have any questions council member Zach This is more of a quick comment of uh for the last one, I was voting no because I thought the uh planning commission recommendation was the one I would have gone with, but given that that vote was lost, I'm I'm making my vote based on what happened for the third one. So, just to give some clarity of why I'm switching my vote. Okay. Any other comments from council? Do I have a motion? Mayor Pro Tim B.

Motion to approve item number four, approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code UDC by mod modifying article 3 residential district section 3.4 allowed uses section 3.4.2 use table. This is the first reading. Do I have a second? Council member Brumley. All in favor, please raise your hand. passes unanimously. Silly city clerk Long, please read the fifth item on the regular agenda.

Uh, yes. This is item number 10243, approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 9, use provisions, section 9.6, industrial uses, section 9.6.6, six warehouse and distribution and article 6 employment district section 6.5 allowed uses section 6.5.2 use table this is the first reading I believe is being presented by Michelle Alexander Assistant Attorney Cusk please read the ordinance

under consideration tonight is an approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code of Roswell by modifying article 9 use provisions section 9.6 industrial uses section 9.6 66 warehouse and distribution in article 6 employment districts section 6.5 allowed uses section 6.5.2 two, the use table is hereby replaced with the amended and the attached year two and incorporated herein by reference and tonight this is the first reading.

Thank excuse me thank you. Um good evening um that we have before you a conversation about warehouses. So we're shifting gears a little bit even though we are talking about amending your unified development code. We're shifting gears to focus exclusively on our economic strategy. Our economic strategy and your economic development strategic plan looks at very specific sets of our city to say where is it appropriate for us to grow and it lands to be approximately only around 12 14% of our entire um acreage and that means every parcel counts and so we're bringing before you actually a matter that was brought to our attention when we looked at data centers so back in January you put a moratorium on data centers and you asked us to explore um the economic impact and what would be proper regulations just like that big large land consuming use of data centers warehouses emerged um as also part of our conversation. One reason was that there was questions of using warehouses claiming to use warehouse when the use was really data centers. So we had to distinguish warehouses from data centers and we wanted to make that clear but also we were looking at the size of a standalone warehouse that it does not generate employment similarly to data centers. It's not an employment generating activity or land use although it consumes or potentially consume a great amount of land. Or you could have potential conversions where you have office space that's being emptied and potentially conversions to warehouse space which with very little employment. So the whole reason that this is before you is we're looking at our precious few parcels that you want to dedicate to economic growth and strategy and to say

what about warehouses and how do we want to manage any that might come into to the city in the future especially if you have strategic parcels. Um and in fact you've had strategic parcels where there was a question about using um warehouse. So you had already put into place and into motion a initiation on the topic. So staff has been working on the warehouse conversation parallel to our conversation about data centers. And tonight we're bringing before you a text amendment that was heard by public hearing at planning commission April 21st. And this is just a reminder for the uh the for everyone how we got here to a reminder of those five areas that we're looking at as our core areas for activity for economic growth and activity in our current comprehensive plan the 2040 one. We're working on our new one and I'm only speaking about what's currently in on the books as your written policy for industrial flex and we're focusing only in the areas of industrial flex tonight. Not light industrial. We're only looking at industrial flex. The primary just jumping to the bottom sentence of what your vision is under on the books is that this whole area of for industrial flex is meant to serve as an employment center, not just an economic engine, but employment center. And so translating um that part of your that part of the city of Roswell, our uptown activity center, it's kind of if you look at the shape of a looks like a pistol. So that full shape, that's where you have your the concentration of employment and where we are looking to be strategic and and drawing more change and employment to this area. Your current 2045 draft. So, we've been meeting with the community and we have been meeting with a stakeholder community committee, excuse me, and um with several of you and having these conversations about what is the future

development and our future character area and in this area where we have a concentration of industrial flex. It's again we're intensifying the commitment to employment centers. And why is that? Again, it comes back down to jobs. And so we were looking at our zoning code as it relates to corresponding where we want to have our job centers and we understood the concern about the the weakness potentially of having warehouses consume some of our precious little bit of land that we want to change. So apologize this is smaller than I anticipated but the change the there's three purposes to this text amendment. one was the first driving one where we first explored data um explored warehousing and the need to regulate it um was to distinguish it from data centers. So this offers language a text amendment that explicitly excludes data and digital storage se se centers. We're taking the opportunity to also exclude trailer or box truck storage as a primary standalone use. What's another use that's a takes up a lot of land but doesn't have a lot of employment parking data centers as well as just parking lots. So if you have areas where you get um large lot of just standalone parking that's not generating employment or economic activity. So the second um purpose of the amendment is just that how do we maximize um employment opportunities and this is where we explicitly um distinguish warehouses and distribution center dis is distinct from data and digital center storage centers and it's also distinct from the primary standalone use of the parking and then we added as we were examining what parking means and having a primary use as parking we recognized that of course a warehouse or or some of our

manufacturing um industries are going to need some parking. So we just wanted to qualify that temporary trailer storage or drop off lots so that again it's not any permanent parking lots as a use consuming large portions of our acreage in the industrial flex category. Um and then finally as it relates to um the when we do allow warehouses we want to have some limitations. So in the use center use standard section of the code we're recommending that we um limit the access to um a a warehouse use and this would apply only to new uses um and in the industrial flex districts that they have to have access to state highway. Um and then there was the warehouse maximum size to limiting that if it's a standalone use 25,000 square ft. Now we don't want to impede on our manufacturing or industries that need warehousing and space that are are generating employment. So we are allowing it if if you're if you do have that as and you want a warehouse as a secondary use absolutely as an accessory use that that we understand that's the importance an important piece of operations for some of our businesses that do have large um employment activity. So this would change um in your use table from permitted to conditional use on the warehouse and distribution only in the EIX that is your industrial flex and we have about 25 30 parcels that are currently zoned ex um we made sure that none of them were impacted by this code in terms of what their uses are with their business license today. So this would apply to any new uses coming in. And we are just sharing a recommendation from planning commission.

Planning commission recommended approval. They did have a slight um word smmith under um number two in the youth standards where they added a comma and they wanted to say except size very exceeds 25,000 square feet. So they added a comma and inserted um ex the word accept. So we a agreed with that um change and so we have that before you and our recommendation is that you approve it with the change as modified by planning commission please.

City clerk long. Are there any speakers for this item? There are no speakers. Does council have any comments or questions for this item? Council member Sal.

Thank you. Hey, uh, just a couple quick questions. Can you go back to the to the previous slide there? No, not that one. Yeah. Uh, I just want to make sure I'm clear because I I wrote before you got to this one that, you know, uh, I want to make sure I understand how you will differentiate warehouse from manufacturing floor. Okay. I don't want to pick nits, but I want to make sure that that that's given some thought and hear what you think about that. In particular, you know, the distinction would be lost to the untrained eye. Let's just put it that way, right? you it could be a manufacturing floor and look an awful lot like a warehouse. So, are you providing any language? Is it a judgment call? And I'm thinking particularly of somebody who might perhaps make uh drone engines or something to that effect. we would rely on what our existing definitions and I don't have it here to show you how we define manufacturing as as very specific set of operations including assembly production and manufacturing of materials and so it the definition currently describes what manufacturing is and what light indust industry is

okay so conversion so there's it is through the existing definitions to distinguish between warehouse which is storage of goods and um products versus um operations of creating and production or operations of um manufacturing. Okay, that sound that sounds I apologize. I should have had those up here. No, but that that helps. I'm not so sure that this certainty I'm not so sure this language doesn't cover it because you're saying that if they are in the manufacturing business, that's why I want to know that definition or we should think about that definition. Yeah.

Then it doesn't apply, right? The whole 20. So if it's 250,000 square feet support if like manufacturing or any other industry operations needs warehousing, we want to make sure we're allowing that and supporting that. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And the second question I had was um you you made a a sharp distinction that we are focused on light industrial uh excuse me uh industrial flex and not light industrial. Is there a reason why we decided not to address the data center issue in the light industrial as well as well? So we're going to be bringing are are you saying data center?

Yes. In particular because you I think you specifically as you were talking about your data center proposals you said specifically we are only doing ex and we are not doing light industrial and I want to understand why

for for the warehouse the so for the warehouse data centers we're going to be bringing to you separately. We have another um presentation as a specifically for data centers. Um we are looking at um industrial flex um we wanted to because there of the the number of parcels they're there's few of them but they're large size and they're in in in very strategic locations and the light industrial already has quite a few warehouses. We didn't want to impact and create problems for our existing businesses. not create problems, but we didn't want to impact existing businesses who relied on approvals for their existing warehouse and warehouse type um operations. So, we did not touch light industrial. We could we could expand it and and we can do some study to look at who would be impacted and what those businesses are and what they're generating for as an economic impact. That would be a more thorough way to consider light industrial um and looking at it Excuse me.

In regard to data centers specifically, sorry, not data centers. We're only talking about warehouses right now. So data centers are coming to you in a separate conversation with a separate set of um recommended standards. I sorry for the confusion riff ripping off your your first statement. So I I get you understand. Any other questions from council? Do I hear a motion? Council member Cells. Do I have a second? Council member Brumley. All in favor?

I'm sorry. Council member Sal you. Okay. Um I would like to make a motion to approve an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 9 use provisions section 9.6 industrial uses section 9.6. 6.6 warehouse and distribution and article 6 employment districts section 6.5 allowed uses section 6.5.2 use table. This is the first reading. Do I have a second? Council member Bramley. All in favor please raise your hand. Clarifying question.

Point of clarity. Do we have to say that um we're accepting the planning commission's word language as part of the motion? I think is it incorporated as part of Oh, it's not. So, yes, we would need to I retract. Yeah. Thank you. Yes. You're saying that the motion as read does not include the language and I I should have it has the approval with the changes. What's the next slide? Shall I try again? Excuse me. Yeah, just for clarity just to do it.

Strike above. Uh, I make a motion to appro uh to approve an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 9 use provisions, sections 9.6 industrial uses, section 9.6.6 warehouse and distribution, and article six employment districts, section 6.5 allowed uses, section 6.5.2 use table as amended by the planning commission. So move. Second,

Council Member Brley. Second. Now, do do I have a vote? Unanimous. Motion passes. City Clerk Long, please read the sixth item on the regular agenda. This is item number 10281, approval of an ordinance to amend the Unified Development Code by modifying article 2, Rules of Interpretation, section 2.2, two rules applicable to all districts section 2.2.2 residential parking location. This is the first reading presented by Jeannie Payton. Assistant Attorney Cusk, please read the ordinance.

This is approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code of Roswell by modifying article 2 rules of interpretation. Section 2.2 rules applicable to all districts. Section 2.220 220 residential parking location is hereby replaced with the amended and attached here two and incorporated herein by reference and this is the first reading. Good evening. The next four text amendments are an effort to improve code enforcement efforts um and enforcement in within the city. The first two items are in the UDC and went to the planning commission and you'll see the reflection of that and the second two items are in the code of ordinances. So staff is proposing the following text amendments. Two amendments to the unified development code. The first for residential front yard parking and section 2.2.20 20 residential parking location to enforce the intent of the code regarding parking location in residential properties and then parking on the grass section 10.14 parking lot layout designed primarily to be more explic to more explicitly prohibit parking on the grass. The two subsequent text amendments to the code of ordinances are for bulky items um section 24.6 six of the code of ordinances causing overflow of dumpsters and inoperable vehicles in 22.4.3 um for the rectification of inoperable vehicle clutter. So the problem that we had was um related to residential parking was related to complaints about residents parking cars, trailers, boats um and the like in the front yard on the grass areas and in landscape areas. Residents disputed parking requirements for the front yard and the ordinance currently refers to the front setback, therefore leading to confusion about

what the front yard meant. Here's some pictures of some scenarios that code enforcement has encountered. So, the solution was to change the word setback to yard and clarify that vehicles, including tra trailers and boats, can only be parked on hard surface. It clarifies that no parking is allowed on grass or landscaped areas. It adds reference to section 10.14 for commercial. So here was the proposed text amendment. The red represents what we took to um planning commission and on April 21st, planning commission voted to recommend adding the language that is um in blue. So you can see we added parking of any vehicle including but not limited to trailers and boats and then the city engineer or his or her designate um on a turf reinforced driveway. Planning commission added subject to limited exception provided by 9.7.23 for recreational vehicle parking. This is a section of the code that allows somebody for a 24-h hour period to pull their RV up to load it. Um, no parking is allowed in any grass or lawn or landscaped area. And so they didn't recommend any changes there. And then any parking in the front yard must have sufficient depth. And then they added section 4 for the purposes of this section 2.2.20A. Front yard shall mean front yard as defined in section 14.2 any and any street facing sideyard. They thought about whether or not a sideyard would fit into this criteria. And then we also had recommended that circular reference of parking requirements for non-residential lots are specified in 10.14.

Um staff recommends approving per the proposed text um changes from the planning commission. That was that's 2.2.20. So I'll stop there. Item number six. Yes. City clerk Long, is there anyone anyone from the public would like to speak on this item? There are no speakers. Council have any questions? Council,

one quick comment. This is this is I was looking to see if there was anything else about parking. We This is off off this particular topic and I'm going to come right back to it, but um I was in I was knocking doors and I was in a neighborhood and they had in the culde-sac there were 10 cars parked in two rows. Obviously, we have code against that. I just have to think um that is outside of code enforcement and is a legal matter. I think it would be police traffic matter. Okay. Interesting. Thank you. That's it.

Can I have a motion? Councilman Bremley. Um, which one we anyone? Yes. Um, I would like to um set a motion to approve the ordinance to amend the UDC by modifying article 2 rules of interpretation section 2.2 rules applicable to all districts. Section 2.2.20 20 residential parking location at the first reading to include to include including the changes that including the recommendations from the planning commission in blue. Is that good?

Council member Philip here. He's seconding. All in favor, please raise your hand. Passes unanimously. City Clerk Long, please read the seventh item on the regular agenda. This is item number 10282, approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 10 site development section 10.1 parking section 10.1.14 parking lot layout and design. This is the first reading presented by Jenny Payton.

Assistant Attorney Cusk, please read the ordinance. It's approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code of Roswell by modifying article 10 site development section 10.1 parking section 10.1.14 parking lot layout and design is hereby replaced with the amended and attached here to and incorporated here and by reference if it and if approved this is the first reading.

All right. So the problem here in 10.1.14 is related to commercial um properties where businesses particularly vehicle sales park vehicles on the grass and in landscaped area. The UDC states that a porous pavement material such as grass and grass may be substituted for standard dust-free pavements with the approval of the zoning director. The city lost in municipal court a case that cited a business for parking on grass. The owner argued that the grass was a dustfree surface. So the solution is to change the term from dustfree to hard surface. It removes grass as an allowed surface material. Specifically prohibits the parking of any vehicle including but not limited to trailers, boats, on grass, and landscaped areas. Corrects the wording for the reference to the residential parking to match the wording used in that section. and corrects the residential parking section number. So the originally proposed text amendment is in red. Um where we asked for or other hard surfaces um may be used substituted for standard dust-free pavements. Planning commission proposed or other improved surfaces or engineered permeable paving systems approved by the zoning director and the city engineer as applicable. And then further down added the his or her design limited to grass. We got rid of grass um to just head to grass ring and grid systems and then added parking of any vehicle included but not limited to trailers and boats on any other surface including grass. Planning commission added natural and landscaped areas is prohibited. And then the reference to detached house, attached house, and town home lots specified in

section 2.2.20. It had referenced 18 from a previous version of the code that had not been clarified. And so we corrected that to 20. So staff again recommends approval. Planning commission heard the proposed text amendment, recommended the blue changes, and staff recommends that approval with the proposed edits. Any questions? City Clerk Long, is there anyone who would like to speak on this item? There are no speakers. Does council have any comments or questions regarding this item? Council member Felipe,

do you recall the conversation of why the word natural was added to grass? So, does that mean if it's artificial turf, it's okay? just to clarify like further and um rectify the situation that came up that natural grass is different than turf that could be an improved surface. Yes. So they added natural. Thank you, Council Member Brley. That was my exact same question. What does it says natural grass? Thank you.

Any other question? Can I get a motion? Council member Zach. I'd like to make a motion for approval of an ordinance to amend the unified development code by modifying article 10 site development section 10.1 parking section 10.1.14 parking lot layout and design including the recommendations from the planning committee. Do I have a second? Council member Brumley. All in favor? Passes unanimously.

City Clerk Long, please read the eighth item on the regular agenda. This is item number 10288. Approval of an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances by modifying chapter 24 utilities and services article 24.3 collection of commercial waste section 24.36 special requirements. This is the first reading presented by Jeannie Payton. Assistant attorney, please read the ordinance.

Thank you, mayor. This is an approval of an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances by modifying chapter 24 utilities and services article 24.3 collection of commercial waste section 24.3.6 special requirements is hereby rel replaced with the amended and attached here too and incorporated herein by reference and if approved this is the first reading. Um, this item, excuse me, is in the code of ordinances, therefore did not go to the planning commission and the language has remained the same since initiation. The problem, business owners, contractors will place b large bulky items, furniture, appliances into dumpsters. It causes overflows and impedes collection services. The code of ordinances does not specifically prohibit large bulky items from city serviceed dumpsters. So to improve that code enforcement effort, changes to the word city forces to city staff and adds item D to specify that large bulky items shall not be placed in city dumpsters and that these items must be property disposed of by the property owner or through an approved special collection service. Specifies that large bulky items include pallets, large furniture, large appliances, and other bulky items. You can see that those changes and amendments that I was discussing before are reflected in red here. And again, this is an item that does not go to planning commission because it's in the code of ordinances. So, um, comes to you tonight for the first reading. Staff recommends approval. You have any questions?

City Clerk Long, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? There are no speakers. Does council have any comments or questions on this item? Council member cells, what what are the enforcement mechanisms with regard to or fines or anything of the sort? Um we cite people and they are um they end up in court for a decision to be made and fines could be part of that. But they're also customers, are they not? Essentially, they're customers because they're they're we are they're paying us to remove their garbage. So they're customers. Yes, they are. Could we not find them directly as part of their trash pickup? Yeah. Yeah.

Well, now that it's specifically Well, this would have to be a it's a separate citation because it's in the code of ordinances now. So, it's a code violation. So, so you could not it could not be a penalty. We could not make it a a commercial term. Good. I mean, frankly, that would be it would be a whole lot more effective than having the code people chase these guys down. Correct. Correct. But this also coincides with the residential portion of this for the large bulky item pickup. I think it's $35 as well. So this tracks with that um for the

Yeah, but that's that's not addressing the person. Back to your pictures of you know the the sofa and the you know their their whole apartment is in the now in the dumpster, right? So it doesn't address that. That's still a code enforcement. So and we use contractors to pick up the trash. So they're out there. They're the ones who see it. they pick it up and they put it in and then it goes to our transit system and clogs up everything. So, I'm just wondering if there is a way to make that a commercial term and I realize that's not this ordinance specifically, but if we can make that a commercial term in the relationship, that would be an excellent move. And the second question is like it in that can we use our commercial relationship to communicate this code change diligently uh so that there is no misunderstanding because this is a real pain in the rear to our whole system and so it seems like that would be um you're sending them a bill you're going to get somebody's attention who so I would recommend that I'm not you know not changing the amendment or the motion regarding that, but uh if we could look into that and see if we could maybe put some teeth in this through that and communicate it through that, that'd be great. Thanks.

I'll speak to Mr. Watson about adding that to the commercial terms for commercial solid waste pickup. Yeah, because they're coming out and I mean they're they're specifically coming out and that relationship is is one to one, right? Yeah. Council member Hall.

Thank you, Mayor. Um my only question is large appliances. Um and is there any benefit to put examples of what would be large, what would be medium? Um there are so many different types of appliances. I mean I think of a washing machine as a large appliance or a dishwasher, but I can't imagine people are throwing those in dumpsters. So what is a large appliance? Um, I can ask code enforcement. They can speak to Oh, this is going to be okay. We've been waiting for you all night long.

Evening, mayor and council. Um, my name is Nate Johnson. I'm the code enforcement supervisor. And to answer your question, large pallets, uh, couches, um, anything that's large and bulky. It could be washer and dryers and and those type of things um that you know will go into these dumpsters and everything and it causes a problem because if we have our city trucks coming and they dump them in these city's trucks then our city trucks get damaged. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions from council? Can I have a motion? Council member cells. I love to make a trashy motion. Uh so I we make a motion. What are we on? Eight. Eight. All right. Uh I make a motion to approve an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances by modifying chapter 24 utilities and services article 24.3 collection of commercial waste. Section 24.3.6 special requirements. This is the first reading.

Do I have a second? Council member Brumley. All in favor? Passes unanimously. City clerk Long, please read the last item on the regular agenda. Okay. This is item number 10341, approval of an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances by modifying chapter 22, traffic and motor vehicles, article 22.4, motor vehicles operation and maintenance, section 22.4, for free inoperable motor vehicle. This is the first reading presented by Jenny Payton. Assistant Attorney Cusk, please read the ordinance.

This is an approval of an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances by modifying chapter 22 traffic and motor vehicles article 22.4 motor vehicles operations and maintenance. Section 22.4.3 4.3 inoperable motor vehicle is hereby replaced with the amended and attached here too and incorporated herein by reference and if approved this is the first reading.

The problem that section 22.4.3 um aims to take care of is clarity about what an inoperable motor vehicle is needed. Um I don't know what that means. Current wording does not specify that missing tags um are what can what can qualify something as an interoperable motor vehicle. Um residents dispute that vehicles are operable despite that the fact that they're missing tags and allow them to clutter the yards, parking lots in indefinitely. Um so it it connects that inoperable with the tag itself. if um an officer's lack clear criteria leading to inconsistent citations and legal challenges. Um the solution is to clarify the meaning of an operable vehicle, replace vague wording with either does not display a current license plate with current decals as required by the state of registration or one or more of the following. New wording aligns with the city ordinance with the international property maintenance code rules. Again, the language that is added in red, which either does not display a current license plate or with current decals as required by the state of registration or continues the list um that previously existed in this section of the code. Um staff recommends approval of the text amendment as proposed. City click learn long or is there anyone to speak on this item?

There are no speakers. Does council have any comments or questions regarding this item? Council member Hall. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um I I I do have a question because there was a picture of a vehicle in somebody's driveway. I I think does this this apply to if people parking in their own driveways if it's inoperable, they're not allowed to keep it in their own driveway? Yes. Ever.

Yes. Yes. It's purposeful. That is a problem that exists that beyond the list of being wrecked, dismantled, partially dismantled, inoperative was not clear. Um abandoned and discarded. Um, we were we were now requesting to require an active tag. Um,

so they just have to have an active tag, but somebody could park their work truck if they are a carpenter or something and and they have a work truck and they need to maybe replace their tires or something like that. they they can park their truck there um until their tires or parts come in that they need as long as their tag is current.

Um not necessarily because it would fall under one of the other um criteria possibly and I think it's a lengthy we're not going out and doing sweeps and trying to find people who are you know one flat tire. It's about addressing um visible in the driveway inoperable vehicles that continue for a long time. So someone who just needs to change a flat tire would not be caught up in this. But something that continues to need tires, all four tires could, you know, is already cla art part of dismantled, partially dismantled, inoperative. It it would be I'm sorry inoperative.

Am I saying that right? Just to clarify that council member Hall. So say say the situation you just outlined was happening. They get a citation then they fix the tires. Well the citation gets to court and it's dismissed because they remedied the issue. So if you need some some time and the court's going to work with you or the prosecutor is going to work with you if that's the case. So, I'd also like to clarify before I'm sorry, um that someone can have a a a vehicle that meets this criteria in their garage. Um this is, you know, in the driveway.

So, some some people in Roswell may not have garages or their garages may be used for other things. And a lot of people in the trades um or or not in the trades um may have vehicles that that need service and I mean maybe your radiator goes out, maybe you know other you need a new head gasket and those types of things um you have to order parts for um may take some time. That that's what my concern is. I understand that we're trying to address the jalapy that's been parked there for for, you know, for months on end and it's an eyes sore. You know, I I I get that. But I I I keep my cars 15 years, so I I I live in the world of of cars that that need help sometimes. Um, so and I know there's a lot of people out there like that. So that's that's what my concern is. I'm sure Nate would be happy to clarify one.

Yeah, Nate Johnson again. Um, so we receive a lot of these complaints about the inoperable vehicles that are being placed in his driveways um with the tags and, you know, no current decals and and so on and so forth. But when we go and address these complaints, we educate the the the tenant, the resident um on the uh on the the the the situation and um we pretty much just we work with them. We work with them. Long as they work with us, we work with them. Um, and we give them a little bit of time if that's the case so they can get their their vehicle resolved. All right. Council member Zach,

this might be a legal question, maybe out of curiosity. If if someone has a tag that shows expired, but they actually renewed it and we were to to site their car, would we be protected by this language or is that a weird edge case? Yeah, we would. And and normally in situations like that, that has happened in up in court, I know. And the the resident, whoever has whoever the owner of the car is, comes in and shows proof of registration or proof that the tag is active and then that citation would be dismissed. So I'm I'm council member south

just one quick question. Is there any time bound to this? In other words, is it you know one day or are we saying that if it's longer than 15 days? Did we say anything of that sort or is it purely a judgment call? Um the the section that is shown in black is already in existence in the code and there is no time frame in that. So, um, a few of the things that we're debating are kind of what has already been in effect as the code and it is just the addition of the current license plate. That's the motion before. Yeah. But you can recommend modifications to the to the language um between first and second reading. Um,

could you go to the Could you go to the one in front of it? Uh, the Yeah. Uh the one about the uh no that where they don't have a current tag or registration that's is that all this is that the only there's inoperable but there's also current tag right. Well the inoperable yeah was qualified previously. So the language in black is already in the code. Um, the only addition we're proposing is adding the current plate language to this section of the code. This is 22.4.3. Is is there anything in 22.4 or is this is the sole thing we're changing? Is this one sentence in this? Yes. Okay.

Yes. It seems like it may be useful to have some kind of time because as Joe was talking about, hey, you can win in court. That's pretty cold comfort for somebody to have to go to court to say, "Well, here's my tag." Or, you know,, you know, it was in the mail and I got it 15 days later. That seems like it's a little hard. So, perhaps we should consider that.

Suggested there is a working together period of time prior to issuing someone a citation. That's kind of the last effort that is that is made in the march towards a court rectification. So usually we can clarify these kind of misunderstandings or if a tire is on order like those kind of things are understandable and code enforcement works with

okay so yeah like I said um normally we do give them it's at our leisure actually um we can still talk to them and see how long it would take them to get their vehicle repaired. Um, if they say it's about, you know, a month or something like that, we we don't do 30 days, you know, it's pretty much a 10, 15, 15 day at at the most um to get their their vehicle repaired. If not, we issued a citation, they come to court. Most of the time when they come to court, they still get a little bit more time to have their vehicle repaired, just to come into compliance. So, so when you say repaired, so if someone hits my rear bumper,

it's cra it's smashed in. Car is still drivable. You're going to tell is that you if if my neighbor suddenly doesn't like the look of the car. Well, now that's that's a different situation because you were in an accident. So now you have to wait for the insurance indust. Correct. But you just said you're going to give me 15 day. That's what I'm I'm Right. But we Yeah, 15 days. But, you know, like I said, we we work with each other on this, you know. So, if they're telling us, okay, well, we got an insurance adjuster coming out and um it's going to take a little bit of time, we work with them upon that.

Okay. But I've been rearended by someone who doesn't have insurance and my budget's tight this month and I my car still works. I needed to get to work. I you know, I I appreciate we want things to look pretty. I'm not disagreeing, but just because my neighbor suddenly says, "I don't like Mary parked next door to me with a smashed in rear bumper. Car still works. I got my tags. Everything's working." What I'm And maybe I'm just I'm not understanding. If I don't have the money to fix the car right then and there, it's still operable. Technically, it's wrecked.

I'll give you that. But so, I'm going to get a a code violation that I have to now come and work with you. If even if I don't have the money to fix it, we can give you the option to cover it up. Give me the option option to cover the vehicle. To cover the vehicle and cover the vehicle or put it inside the inside your garage. It I don't have a garage. You don't have a garage. I live in an apartment. I'm I'm not I'm not trying to be I'm not trying to be silly. Okay. I live in an apartment. I don't have a garage. I work every day.

Now I've got a I don't have the money to fix. My lights are working. I'm going to I'm going to give you that. my rear light. So, I'm not going to get a a a ticket for whatever. My my bumper my trunk got hit. So, now I have to tie it and it looks ugly. But now you're going to give me an option. Now I have to go buy a cover for my car. Yeah. Wow. Most most likely. Yes. Let me If that this is Yeah, it's only an operable vehicle.

No, that's not what it says. So, if I could just take a moment and clarify, we're talking about wrecked and inoperative vehicles in this code section. Okay? As we start to talk scenarios through, we're not talking about vehicles that can be driven and vehicles that may be banged up a little bit. There is there is a difference. And the code enforcement officers are charged with understanding and making a determination.

But in this case, we're talking about in section 22.4.3 4.3 inoperable motor vehicles. So, not just banged up and beat up, but can't be driven, can't be moved, wrecked vehicles. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear. I understand that there is a whole spectrum that the officers have to deal with. This is just an inoperative vehicle that we're trying to address that may be sitting in a driveway or other places. Correct. You're that that was my error. I I kept reading the bottom part. I apologize because I I I'm like, wait a minute. Council member Zach,

thank you. Um, excuse me. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, this is kind of a presumption and and maybe I'm getting like your validation on this. My presumption is there's a lot of edge cases that we kind of talked about, but if we are to write all those variables in the code, it people will use that as loopholes and make it harder for us to attack the conceptual of what we're trying to do. And so, correct me if I'm wrong. My assumption here is that we kind of have to have the code the way it is. And then we also have to have a level of understanding that our code enforcement is going to practice a leniency and and understanding and that they're not out there trying to site everyone, but instead they need the restrictive code. So, when they have to take action, they don't have those variables that may cause issues. Is that a fair and correct statement?

Yes. And I believe the scenario that ensues is we might get a complaint. Code enforcement goes out and investigates. They talk with the person. They understand the code, but they're not hammering down on the regulations of the code at that point. They work with the the citizen. They try to see what the plan and if the plan that is presented is reasonable, they let that plan play out. If the plan was just kind of conversation to end that first conversation and they see repeated um timeline and nothing happening as was proposed, then this gives them something to sight against when it comes to that um scenario. So they're not out there sweeping the city looking for inoperable vehicles. it. Our code enforcement language allows them to, you know, deal with property maintenance concerns and they do it very delicately.

Council member Hall, thank you. So, um, this exists on our books and and what what they're asking for, what you're proposing is for these vehicles that if they don't have a current license plate or a current tag, that kind of goes to the um support that it's it's inoperable. Yes. It's like truly Yeah. should be moved. seemed

I would give a scenario which maybe is a bad scenario but like you have to get an emissions test for most cars and if someone you know continues to keep a car but can't get an emissions test and then it sits there and just for years on end and continues to become you know inoperable then it could trigger this if needed. Okay. Thank you. Council member Rley.

Yeah. So, I was listening to both the examples that um the mayor and council member Ho was that you're talking about, but in those cases, you do have a current license plate with the car. I mean, if you just had a wreck, you you this is for when you had it last so long that you had a wreck and at that point, you're not going to be able to salvage the vehicle. And so I mean I don't it sounds like those scenarios where something that is currently in the code has nothing to do with tonight's amendment. So maybe we can have a a a conversation later when we work on the UDC if we want to clean it up. But I think this is a good addition just because it makes it more clear that you have to have a license and you know sorry a tag a current tag for it. Any other comments, questions?

A quick question. This is it's 20 chap section 22 is all about residential. This does not apply to commercial. Is that a fair statement? Um I would have to verify that. I'm not I don't generally use the code of ordinances. So the reason I ask is because you know this is a this would be a real problem for a for a car repair shop. Yes. So 22. I did just verify with Nate Johnson that it is residential. My goal is to make sure we get Nate up to the microphone as many times as possible. That's my goal. He's the star.

I'm I'm sorry, Nate Johnson. Again, just barrel me. This is my first time with you with you folks. Um but yes, it's res. Good job. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions? Motion. I will enter a motion of approval of the ordinance. We're on 41, right? Um to amend the code of ordinances by modifying chapter 22 motor and traffic uh vehicles article 22.4 motor vehicles operation and maintenance section 2243 inoperable motor vehicle. This is the first reading.

Can I get a second? Council member Zach. All in favor, please raise your hand. passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the city attorney's report. Assistant Attorney Cusk, please read the first item.

Uh the first item is an approval of a resolution authorizing the execution of a legal services agreement related to AFFP litigation services. Um there is a deadline of ne by the end of next week for the city to enter into a nationwide class action uh suit regarding the forever chemicals that are in the water supply. Currently we don't have any detected. Um, but as the testing gets better, this will protect the city in the future if there is any forever chemicals uh detected in the water supply and would qualify us for any settlement of uh funds that would lead to uh the ability to remediate those forever chemicals. Um, so we're asking for a resolution to enter into this agreement uh just to protect the city legally when it comes to this uh litigation on this class action suit.

City Clerk Wong, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? Yes, Mayor. There is one speaker, Frederick Giano.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Frederick in Roswell. Um, this working here this thing.

Can you also reset the time so that that I stop the time? What what are you what are we just want to put some exhibits to that? Okay, let's see what they are. Can we take a quick look at those? Yeah, it's a resolution. Looks like a previous resolution or this existing resolution.

All right. Okay. So, uh this is with regard. So, when I look at the agenda this afternoon, I was intrigued by this uh uh this resolution, this uh issue here and which I believe uh is related to uh obtaining didn't reset the clock. Okay. obtaining a part of the settlement uh with regards to the pollution of our water system with forever chemicals. So this is not a litigation as I understand it to go after uh to go after um um the likes of DuPont, BSF or 3M. It's a matter of obtaining our fair share of the settlement money for which uh companies like 3M or DuPont have already put billions of dollars. Now there were a lot of u a lot of phases to this uh class action lawsuit and whether the city had detected some of those chemicals I don't know there is no information available in all this um but uh what intrigued me as part of the research this afternoon is that in the state of Michigan the state attorney general has uh recommended to the municipalities to be careful about uh hiring uh law firms terms to uh to u participate in the collection process of the settlement money because it's actually to collect the money appears to be a fairly simple process where the municipality only have to log into the portal provide the results of the tests that have been performed on the city water and then u get their follow the process that is already established as

part of the settlement to get their fair share of the money. Uh up a little bit. Uh this is part of that they say look be careful of actors that uh may be unscrupulous and in fact is you know you can do it all on your own. So I'm surprised that we don't have the in-house resources to be able to collect that money whereas we're going to pay 33 and a half% or 33 and a3% of the settlement. Um, if it's $3 million, we have to fork out a million dollar to a comp to a law firm. And uh, well, under those conditions, I'd be happy to volunteer my services to log in onto a portal and uh, put in the results of the testing of the water and I'll be happy to even settle for half of that. Anyway, so I I just wanted to get clarifications. I don't understand exactly uh why is it that we have to hire a law firm to do something that could be very simply done internally. The second part of message but the resolution says um whereas whereas whereas tax LLC has put together uni yada yada yada. Okay. And then it refers at the end exhibit A. So I go to exhibit A. Whereas the city of Roswell, Georgia, represented by the city attorney, David de yada yada um hereby retains Stag Lua LLC through attorney whatever and Kther's and Mitchell LLC. So it's not a law firm as it's in the resolution. It's two law. It says one this one this one plus that one. So I'm trying to figure out exactly what is that

resolution and what is the contract and why is the contract not uh not um u matching the resolution and all that has intrigued me and frankly I just don't find a whole lot of transparency in everything that I've seen about this resolution and this contract and therefore I'm asking you to u get a little bit of clarification hopefully and perhaps delay the contract and also find out exactly have we already filed for uh like I believe 122 municipalities in Georgia alone and have we tested our water to establish that we are in fact party to the settlement or if we have to start from scratch and we have to insert ourselves into the settlement because the city had not done the prior due diligence to establish whether our water was contaminated at the due dates that it was necessary which were in 2024. for in 2025. So I'm asking some clarification and I think that as a general rule I would appreciate if we could have a little bit more modicum of rigor in the attorney product that is coming out of our legal department here. Thank you very much for

so a couple of things and I know somebody I guess if you're not familiar with class action lawsuits this is how they file them. Okay very frequently.

Excuse me. I'm explaining I'm going to answer your questions. So a class designation is given to the attorneys who are bringing the class action lawsuit to practice in a local jurisdiction. They have to contract with local counsel because they can't they can't wave in. They have to have local counsel in that jurisdiction. So the attorneys that are bringing this case are designated by the court as the class representatives for all those they are the attorneys of record. They then contract with other local attorneys because they can't practice law in other jurisdictions to effectuate the settlement there. So that is why it is structured that way. That's how class action litigation works. I understand you're not familiar with class action litigation, but that's how that works. So that's why it's structured the way it is. That's how class action lawsuits are handled. That the court designates an attorney. They get to handle the class and then they subcontract with another local council because most of those attorneys who handle the whole class action aren't licensed in all 50 states. So why is the uh state of Michigan attorney general is recommending to the municipalities to file their settlement um protocol themselves?

That is a Michigan that is a Michigan issue. The Georgia litigation is ongoing right now.

Okay. Thank you for your response. Appreciate it. Is there anyone else from the public would like to speak? Does council have any questions? Council member Hall. Thank you, mayor. Um, my question is we have our own water utility and then we also have Fulton County Water. So when we're filing or when we're participating, are we partic how how is that how does that break out between our water utility and the water that we source from Fulton County?

So it would it would be under our water utility and how that's affected. Fulton County is going to handle their water utility the way they would, you know, handle theirs, but it's going to be for our water utility. So unless you have a water utility, you can't participate. I think you can participate because there's also a groundwater aspect to this. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for council? Council member cells.

As someone who generally despises trial lawyers uh in general, um just a couple of questions. Have you read what is their their fee structure for this? And I know that's set by the court, but what what is the fee structure that has been set by the court for this case? because there hasn't been a settlement reached in this case. It hasn't been set yet. So, it's still in litigation. Correct.

And um so to his point, you we have we found that the most efficient way for us to do this aside from the testing question, which I don't know that we can answer here, but um we have we have determined that the best way is to join this as opposed to to perhaps engaging it ourselves because you can also join the suit, right? you you don't have to be a part of the class to join the suit necessarily.

So, they've been designated local counsel to handle this this specific suit and if we opt in this way. I it would be very hard for us at this point because they're the designated class representative. We we would have to join in or we have to petition the court to go around and enter it ourselves. So, it's it's easier as a matter of course to join the with the class litigants. Indeed. Yeah, I I hear you. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? Do I hear a motion? Council member Beast.

Motion to approve item number 10441, approval of a resolution authorizing the execution of the legal services agreement related to the AFF PAS litigation services. Do I have a second? Council member Brumley. All in favor, please raise your hand. passes unanimously. Assistant Attorney Cusack, please read the last item on the city attorney's report. Thank you, Mayor. I have a recommendation to go into closure following the committee meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 to discuss personnel litigation andor real estate.

Do I hear a motion? Council member Zach, do I have a second? Council member Cells. All those in favor, please raise your hand. passes unanimously. Being that there are no other items on this mayor and council meeting of Monday, May 11th, 2026, the meeting is adjourned.