Oct 10, 2023 Board of Aldermen

THANK YOU LORD FOR THE IMPROVEMENT WE HAVE MADE, THUS FOR IN THIS CITY ON BEHALF OF ALL THE CITIZENS, THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE WORK THAT IS IN MAKING RIGHT NOW FOR THE GOOD OF ALL OUR CITIZENS.

YES, WE THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US ONCE AGAIN TO THIS MEETING OF THE MIND AND HEART WITH OUR MAYOR, ALDERS, CITY OFFICIALS, AND CITIZENS, SO THAT WE MAY HEAR AND ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES ON TODAY'S AGENDA IN LOVE, RESPECT, AND PEACE FOR THE HEALTH, THE WELLBEING, AND THE GOOD OF OUR CITY AND CITIZEN.

OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, WE PRAY YOUR WILL BE DONE.

IN THIS MEETING AS IT IS IN HEAVEN RIGHT NOW.

AND THE REDEEM OF OUR LORD SAY AMEN.

AMEN.

IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND AS WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF OUR COUNTRY.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, 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.

MADAM CLERK, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ALDERMAN PRI.

[3. Approve Agenda.]

UH, BOARD.

THE NEXT ITEM IS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA.

I DO HAVE ONE REQUEST.

UM, ALDERMAN ASTOR HAD REQUESTED NUMBER 11, THE SPOT SHOTTER PRESENTATION.

UH, SINCE HE'S A BIT UNDER THE WEATHER NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT, HE ASKED IF WE COULD TABLE THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

AND THE CHIEF SAID THAT HE WAS AMENABLE TO THAT.

SO, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON APPROVING THE AGENDA.

SO MOVED.

ALRIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE STREET CLOSING.

THAT'S ON THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA.

YOU WANNA PULL THAT WHENEVER WE GET THERE? UH, YE OKAY.

ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AGENDA WITH ITEM NUMBER 11 BEING TABLED.

PLEASE SAY AYE.

ON NOW THERE'S A CONSENT AGENDA.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.

UM, NEXT IS REQUEST AND PETITION OF CITIZENS.

MADAM CLERK, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY.

VERY GOOD.

UH, WE MOVE

[7. Consider Adopting a Resolution Closing Specific Streets for the 2023 Christmas Parade.]

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? MCKENZIE? ALDER.

MCKENZIE, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANNA DISCUSS? YES.

UM, ILL SPEAK WITH THE CITY MANAGER EARLIER TODAY ABOUT, UH, THE STREET CLOSES.

AND THEN HE WAS SHARING WITH ME ABOUT THE CHRISTMAS PARADE AND, UM, UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A CITY SPONSOR EVENT, BUT WHEN HE SAID THAT THE PARKS AND REC WOULD TAKE ON THE CHRISTMAS PARADE, THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN WILL THAT BE

[00:05:01]

COMING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN TO DISCUSS THAT? 'CAUSE IT'S A, A LARGE UNDERTAKING BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INVITED TO THE CHRISTMAS PARADE AND, UH, AND PUTTING IT ON.

I THINK THEY CHARGE MONEY FOR THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED AS A BOARD TO DISCUSS MR. HUGHES.

SO, UM, WE ARE TREATING THIS UNLESS THE BOARD HAS OTHER IDEAS AS JUST ANOTHER PROGRAM OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

AND AT THIS TIME WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT CHARGING FOR THIS EVENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

UH, WHEN THE FORMER, UH, GROUP WAS TRYING TO DO THIS, THEY COULD NOT GET PARTICIPATION.

SO IT, WE'RE REALLY GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT RE-IMAGINING HOW THIS PARADE HAS, HAS, HAS, UM, BEEN PULLED OFF OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS AND IN HOPES THAT WE CAN ATTRACT MORE FOLKS TO THIS.

BUT WOULDN'T YOU NOT THINK THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS TO HAVE A, A, A SAY ON, UH, SOMETHING SUCH AS THAT? BECAUSE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE IT'S GOING TO COST MONEY.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IT, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU HEAR THIS WORD TRANSPARENT ALL THE TIME.

AND, UH, I'M NOT TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE JONESES.

I JUST LIKE TO BE INFORMED ABOUT WHERE WE ARE GOING AND WHAT WE'RE DOING AS A GROUP, AS, AS A A MEMBER.

THAT'S JUST WHERE I'M AT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHERS FEEL ABOUT A TEAM.

SO THE ITEM IS TO CLOSE THE STREETS FOR THE PARADE.

UM, ARE YOU SAYING THAT, UH, THE NEXT BOARD MEETING YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF THE PARADE AND HOW IT'S GONNA BE MANAGED? YEAH, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO, I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO BE DISCUSSED AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD THAT WE ALL WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF SAY IN IT.

IT'S NOT THAT, UM, AN INDIVIDUAL, UH, MAKING A DECISION ON, UH, ON SOMETHING.

UH, THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD DOES.

THAT'S WHAT, OH, MCKENZIE, I, MR. ATTORNEY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO PUT AN NEXT, UH, AGENDA ITEM OR OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS, THEN WE CAN DO THAT.

TAKE A VOTE ON IT IF YOU'D LIKE TO DO THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING WE WOULD DISCUSS THE PARADE.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN PRI.

BUT YOU SKIPPED ALDER MCKENZIE.

YEAH, I'M COMING BACK TO HIM.

ALDERMAN MCKENZIE? YES.

[Additional Item]

BUT I MIGHT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON WHAT SHE JUST DID AGAIN, UM, EVERYONE SHOULD GET A CHANCE TO BE THE LAST ONE TO MAKE A VOTE AS WELL, INSTEAD OF USING THE MAYOR AS THE LAST RESULT FOR A VOTE.

GIVE EVERYONE A CHANCE TO BE THE LAST ONE TO DO THAT.

THAT'S JUST MY PREFERENCE.

THAT'S A, THAT'S A RULE AND PROCEDURE.

IF THE BOARD WANTS TO DISCUSS THAT, WE CERTAINLY CAN.

AND IF YOU WANNA TAKE THE HEAT WHEN IT COMES YOUR TIME TO MAKE A DECIDING VOTE THAT'S ON YOU.

I WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT.

I'M BIG ENOUGH TO DO THAT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT EFFECT? I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT EFFECT.

THEN WHAT IS THE MOTION? I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LOOK AT GIVING TERMS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ON THE BOARD TO SAY YES OR NO TO THE VOTE.

WELL, I THINK WE DO THAT ALREADY.

I MEAN, I MEAN, UH, THE, THE, THE FINAL VOTE IS THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL GET A TURN TO BE THE LAST PERSON TO THE SIDE.

WHEN YOU CALL EVERYBODY, IT'S ALWAYS THE MAYOR'S THE LAST PERSON TO, TO, TO VOTE.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO, ALDER MCKENZIE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UM, WHEN A MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR AND WE ARE TAKING OUR VOTE THAT OTHER ALDERMEN ARE ASKED TO GIVE THEIR VOTE AND THE MAYOR'S ALWAYS THE LAST TO GIVE HIS MO VOTE.

AND YOU WANT THAT CHANGED? CORRECT.

BECAUSE THE MAYOR IS A TIEBREAKER.

WHICH MEANS HE GOES LAST NOT, THERE'S NO PAD BREAKER, NOT THE MAYOR IS NO LONGER A BREAKER.

NOT IN THAT SENSE.

HE, HE VOTES ALONG WITH US NOW 'CAUSE WE CHANGED THAT WHEN I FIRST CAME IN OFFICE, THEY CHANGED THAT WAY.

[00:10:01]

THE MAYOR COULD VOTE WITH US.

HE DOESN'T BREAK TIES ANYMORE.

THEY CHANGED THAT.

AND I ASKED EARLY ON, UH, WILL WE GO BACK TO CHANGE IT? AND, UM, EVERYBODY GOT SILENCE ON ME.

SO, HEY, I'M THE, WHAT THEY CALL ME, I THINK THEY CALLED ME A NAME, BUT, UH, THE PINK CALIFORNIA, I'M GONNA SPEAK MY MIND.

SO THEY DON'T LIKE IT.

THEY CAN DEAL WITH ME ANY MORE DISCUSSION IF, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN? UM, I MEAN THAT WAS, I REMEMBER YOU BROUGHT THAT ISSUE UP AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT, UH, WELL, UM, MISSTATING IT, I'M SURE KIND OF BOARD RULES AND PROCEDURES OR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

THAT ISSUE CAME UP AND WE APPROVED THAT, THAT YOU WOULD BE, UM, VOTE TAKER IF ON, UM, WAS THAT A CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEARS? YEAH.

SO IN THE PAST, UM, I'VE SEEN IT DONE A VARIETY OF WAYS, UH, SINCE I WAS ON THE BOARD FOR TWO TERMS. AS THE ALDERMAN MAYOR OUTLAW WOULD START AT ONE END AND END AT THE OTHER END ON THE NEXT VOTE.

HE WOULD START ON THAT END AND END ON THAT END.

SO EVERY DECISION WAS EITHER STARTED OR ENDED BY WARD ONE AND ONE WARD SIX.

I MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT THE MAYOR MAKE THAT DECISION.

SO IF IT'S A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE THAT ONE OF THE ALDERMEN DOESN'T TAKE THE HEAT FOR THAT CONTROVERSIAL DECISION THAT WAS BEING MADE.

THAT'S THE REASON I MADE THE SUGGESTION.

BUT IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THE BOARD IF YOU WANNA CHANGE IT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO VOTE WHENEVER YOU WANNA VOTE.

I THINK I, I'D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE FINISHING OUT 2023 UNDER THE PROCEDURE THAT WE APPROVED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

UM, AND, AND TAKE THIS ISSUE UP FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

WHEN WE REVIEW THE BOARD'S RULES AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, UH, IN JANUARY, THERE MAY BE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS IN ADDITION TO THAT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND ON THE FLOOR.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? I DON'T RECALL THE, THE VOTE OR THE CONVERSATION.

DO YOU HAVE NOTATION OF THAT, MS. BRENDA? I DON'T RECALL IT.

I COULD DO SOME RESEARCH, BUT I DON'T RECALL THAT.

I KNOW THAT ALL THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS WERE GIVEN A COPY OF THE EXISTING POLICY, UM, BOARD POLICY AND PROCEDURES, BUT I DON'T RECALL , I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY LOCATED IN THE BOARD POLICY AND PROCEDURES, THE WAY THE MEETING IS CONDUCTED AND HOW THE VOTES ARE ARE ASKED.

IT'S NOT.

UH, LET'S HAVE A ROLL.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL INVEST WELL, I, I AGREE WITH ALDERMAN PRI IF WE JUST FINISH OUT THIS YEAR AND THEN ADDRESS THAT IN JANUARY OF 2024 FOR AN UPCOMING YEAR.

UM, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ROYAL.

ALDERMAN ROYAL.

I'M, I WAS TRYING TO DECIDE WHICH , WHICH WAS THE YES OF THE NO, IT'S YES.

WOULD BE TO CHANGE AND ROTATE.

WHO HAS THE LAST VOTE? THANK YOU.

MAYOR.

ALDERMAN KENZIE? YES.

[Consent Agenda]

SO BACK TO THE CONSENT AGENDA LOOKING FOR BEFORE YOU MOVE ON.

SO, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE THE WAY WE'RE GOING FOR OUR MEETINGS THROUGH THE END OF THIS YEAR.

AND WE ARE GONNA PICK THIS BACK UP IN JANUARY OF 2024.

ANYTIME THE BOARD WANTS TO DISCUSS IT, THEY'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO BRING IT BACK UP.

THANK YOU, SIR.

BACK TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED.

SECOND.

HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AMENDMENT WAS.

POLL SEVEN.

POOL SEVEN WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS PULLED TO THE NEXT MEETING.

THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO DISCUSS THE PARADE AT THE NEXT MEETING.

MATTER CLERK, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT.

ALDERMAN PRI DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION? YOU'RE CORRECT.

WELL, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING ON AT SEVEN TONIGHT.

IF YOU MAKE A MOTION THAT SAYS WE'RE NOT, WE WON'T.

[00:15:01]

UM, ALL WELL, GIVEN THE PREVIOUS VOTE THAT WAS TAKEN, I WILL, UM, CHANGE MY MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA SUBJECT TO ITEM SEVEN BEING REMOVED AND RESCHEDULED FOR DISCUSSION AT OUR NEXT MEETING.

ROY, YOU HAD A SECOND ON THAT ONE.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YES, SIR.

ITEM NUMBER NINE, PRESENTATION OF INAUGURAL COMMUNITY COMMITMENT AWARD BY NORTH CAROLINA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? HEARING NONE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN KENZIE? YES.

ALDERMAN KENZIE? YES.

[9. Presentation of Inaugural Community Commitment Award by NC Recreation& Park Association.]

MR. HUGHES.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I, AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK BILLY WILLS.

HE'S THE CRAVEN COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR AND ALSO A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION AND TORRANCE WILLIAMS TO COME UP TO MAKE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION.

SO, UH, GOOD EVENING.

I HOPE EVERYBODY'S DOING WELL TONIGHT.

YOU, MR. MAYOR AND ALDERMAN, THANKS FOR HAVING US TONIGHT.

I DO REPRESENT NORTH CAROLINA RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION.

I'M THE PAST PRESIDENT AND THEY ASKED ME BECAUSE I LIVE LOCAL, UM, TO HANDLE, UM, WHAT I, WHAT I THINK IS A VERY SPECIAL AWARD.

GOT TORRANCE WITH ME BECAUSE WE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT IN COMMON, UH, ABOUT WHO WE, WE, THE SPORTS WE PLAYED WHEN WE WERE GROWING UP.

AND WE'RE GONNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RECIPIENT OF THIS AWARD, BUT I WANNA TELL YOU ABOUT THE AWARD.

FIRST OF ALL, UM, THIS PERSON'S GONNA BE THE FIRST RECIPIENT EVER, UH, OF THIS AWARD.

OBVIOUSLY IT'S INAUGURAL FOR, UH, AN OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY CITIZEN.

THE, THE AWARD'S CALLED THE COMMUNITY COMMITMENT AWARD.

AND REALLY, UM, WHAT IT'S LOOKING AT IS RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATE.

UM, AND THIS PERSON HAS TO BE INVOLVED IN ATHLETICS.

ALRIGHT? AND WE'VE GOT JUST THAT PERSON HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

UM, NCE AND I ACTUALLY WE'RE REFLECTING A LITTLE BIT THIS MORNING.

UM, HE AND I ARE, UH, ABOUT THE SAME AGE.

AND THIS GUY ACTUALLY COACHED YOU AND I, I KNOW WE DON'T LOOK GOOD.

HE LOOKS A LOT YOUNGER, , BUT THIS GUY ACTUALLY COACHED BOTH OF US.

UH, AND HE DOESN'T LOOK MUCH OLDER US TAR, DOES HE? YEAH.

BUT, UM, BUT WE ENJOYED, UM, BEING AROUND HIM.

UM, HE COACHED BASKETBALL, HE COACHED SOFTBALL FOR ME.

AND THEN I'LL LET NCE TELL YOU A LITTLE ABOUT, ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCES IN JUST A SECOND.

BUT COACHES WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN, IN ME GROWING UP AND ALSO CHOOSING THE FIELD.

I CHOSE THIS GUY WAS ONE OF THE BEST.

I MEAN, HE'S BEEN DOING IT.

I ASK HIM AND HE'LL, THIS WILL KIND OF GIVE IT AWAY, BUT I KIND OF ASK HIM ON THE WAY IN HOW LONG HE'S BEEN DOING THIS.

IT'S BEEN AT LEAST 40 YEARS.

'CAUSE YOU AND I, IT WAS 40 YEARS AGO.

SO, UM, SO YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 'EM? AND MAYBE YOU GOT PROBABLY MORE STORIES THAN I'VE GOT, BUT I'LL LET, UH, NCE TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, WELL, AS BILLY WAS SAYING EARLIER, WE WERE TALKING AND WE CAN, ONE OF THE THINGS WE REMEMBERED WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO A SWAC BASEBALL TOURNAMENT IN BURLINGTON WHERE WE HAD TO PLAY UNTIL LIKE, ABOUT TWO, TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING AND THEN GET UP THE NEXT MORNING TO GET RIGHT BACK ON THE FIELD.

NOW WE ALL, WE ABOUT WORN OUT.

YEAH, THAT GUY WAS READY FOR US TO BE READY TO ROCK AND ROLL.

SO, UM, THIS PERSON, AS BILLY SAID, HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN NOT ONLY, UH, OUR LIVES, BUT SO MANY LIVES THAT HAVE COME THROUGH THE CITY OF NEW BERN.

UH, WHEN I SAW THE AWARD BEING, UH, PUT OUT ADVERTISED, IT WAS A NO-BRAINER.

IT WAS A NO-BRAINER.

I HAD TO GO AND START TYPING IT UP, SENDING IT IN, SUBMITTING IT.

AND I THINK FOR THE STATE IT WAS A NO BRAINER.

THEY CALLED ME BACK BEFORE I EVEN GOT TO THE MEETING AND SAID, HEY, LISTEN, THIS GUY'S, IT, HE'S EVERYTHING THAT WE WANT THIS AWARD TO BE, AND HE'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST RECIPIENT.

SO I WAS PRESENTED THIS AWARD IN, UH, ASHEVILLE, UH, TWO WEEKS AGO.

SOME STORIES FROM CEDAR STREET REC CENTER TO STANLEY WHITE REC CENTER FROM DIRT STREETS IN PEMBROKE.

THIS GUY KNOCKED ON DOORS TO GO GET KIDS.

HE WOULD PUT THEM IN A LITTLE TOYOTA, DRAGGING THEM WHEREVER THEY NEEDED TO GO.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS HE TAUGHT ME IS, UH, JUST NOT ONLY BEING A PLAYER FROM HIM, BUT WHEN I CAME BACK TO BECOMING THIS PROFESSION, I KNEW WHENEVER I LEFT NEWBURN WITH A GROUP OF KIDS TO MAKE SURE I HAD SOME MONEY IN MY POCKET BECAUSE IT WAS SOMEBODY WHO

[00:20:01]

WAS NOT GONNA HAVE SOME MONEY FOR FOOD.

SO WHENEVER WE WENT TO A MCDONALD'S OR WHEREVER WE HAD TO STOP, IF IT WAS JUST A LITTLE STOP AND GO STORE AND THEY JUST NEEDED SOME CHIPS AND A SODA, THAT KID THAT WAS BACK THERE DRAGGING WITH HIS HEAD DOWN, GET ON UP HERE, GET WHAT YOU WANT.

THIS IS WHAT HE'S BEEN WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOOTBALL, BASEBALL, SOFTBALL, YOUTH, ADULT SPORTS, YOU CALL IT.

HE'S DONE IT.

CITY OF NEWBURN.

HE UH, HE ACTUALLY RETIRED AS AN ASSISTANT PARKS AND REC, UH, ATHLETIC, UH, COORDINATOR SOME YEARS AGO, BUT IT AIN'T STOPPED.

THIS MAN HAS BEEN DOING THIS WITH BACK THE, THE ONCE ALIVE AND STILL LIVING, GOING THROUGH THE REC CENTER.

STANLEY WHITE WHO GRABBED HIM WHEN HE FIRST CAME BACK FROM THE ARMY AND TOLD HIM, WELL, YOU NEED TO COME RIGHT BACK WHERE YOU STARTED.

AND THAT'S WHAT HE DID.

SO HE WENT RIGHT BACK TO COACHING AND HE'S DONE IT.

HE'S, WHEN I GAVE THE THING I TOLD HIM THAT HE'S HAD SW CHAMPIONSHIPS, UH, WHICH IS A STATEWIDE ATHLETIC, UH, FOR PARKS AND RECREATION.

HE'S WON THOSE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR YOUNG LADIES AND FOR MALE SPORTS.

HE'S REPRESENTED EVERYONE IN HERE AND HE'S CONTINUED TO DO IT.

NOW HE'S COACHING YOUTH FOOTBALL.

UM, TILL THIS DAY HE'S IN OUR BASKETBALL PROGRAM.

IF, IF, IF CARRIE SAYS SHE NEEDS SOMETHING WITH A YOUTH SPORTS OR WHATEVER, I'M SURE HE'LL BE RIGHT AROUND.

AND MS. SAMPSON AND EVERYBODY NEXT IN HERE KNOW THIS GUY'S THE REAL DEAL.

NOW HE MAY BE IN STATURE ABOUT FOUR FOOT SOMETHING, BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO WHO HE IS IN THIS COMMUNITY AND TO US IN LIFE, HE'S BIG AS DADDY.

THEY MAY CALL, UH, WHAT'S THAT GUY WE USED TO PLAY WITH? THE UH, SPURS DUNK YOU.

ALRIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10, A PRESENTATION OF AMERICAN RED CROSS PREMIER BLOOD PARTNER AWARD.

THE BIG FUNDAMENTAL.

YEAH, HE'S THE ORIGINAL BIG FUNDAMENTAL 'CAUSE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF ATHLETICS.

HE'S MADE SURE THAT EACH KID THAT'S COME THROUGH HERE KNEW THE FUNDAMENTALS.

YOU COULD DO ALL THAT CROSSING OVER, STOP, DRIBBLE THE BALL LIKE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY, YES SIR, YES MA'AM.

AND DO WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO OUT HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

THIS IS THIS GUY AND HIS NAME IS CHARLES PIT.

COME ON.

I, I WAS SURPRIS HIM.

I DIDN'T LET HIM KNOW THAT HE WAS GETTING THIS.

SO I DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY 'CAUSE I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO KNOW.

I GOT A COMFORT.

UH, ONE OF HIS COWORKERS, , RANDY WILLIAMS, BILLY MOORE, THEY ALL CAME, BUT HIS IS, WE DIDN'T LET EVERYBODY KNOW.

'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE ENOUGH ROOM IN THE BUILDING.

IF WE ACTUALLY, THE PEOPLE THAT HE'S TOUCHED, LET'S GET, GET OVER AND GET OFFICIAL WELL DESERVED FIRST GIVING ON TO GOD.

UH, UM, I'M REALLY NOT A SPEAKER, BUT I GUESS WHEN IT COMES TO COACHING, I CAN PULL OUT WORDS.

I JUST SAY THANK GOD FOR THIS.

AND TORRANCE BILLY KNOW, WHATEVER I DO, IT'S NOT FOR THIS.

AND WHATEVER I DO IS FROM MY HEART.

YES IT IS.

AND UH, I REALIZED COACHING IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE IT AND COACHES TAKE A LOT.

BUT FIRST THING I ALREADY REALIZED THAT IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE A GOOD COACH, HAVE TO KNOW THE PLAYERS, ALSO KNOW THE PLAN PARENTS.

THEN I GOTTA FIND OUT WHY THE KIDS ACT THE WAY THEY ACT BY KNOWING THE PARENTS OR WHAT WHERE THEY LIVE AT.

AND MOST TIME A COACH, A LOT OF COACHES I DEAL WITH, THEY START DOING SOMETHING THE COACHES SAY, GET RID OF.

I NEVER GET RID OF ANYBODY.

YOU ON MY TEAM, YOU CAN TO PLAY AND YOU'RE GONNA PLAY.

UH, I CAN ANYWAY.

BUT ANYWAY, THANKS EVERYBODY.

CERTAINLY, UH, CERTAINLY WELL DESERVED.

AND UH, I APPRECI I APPRECIATE TORRANCE FINDING A FEW WORDS.

I KNOW THAT WAS DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO DO 'CAUSE HE'S SUCH A MAN OF FEW WORDS.

SO .

[10. Presentation of American Red Cross Premier Blood Partner Award.]

MR. HUGHES, AT THIS TIME WE'D LIKE TO ASK KRISTEN WILLIS WITH THE AMERICAN RED CROSS TO COME FORWARD.

CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR AWARD, THOUGH.

THAT'S PRETTY IMPRESSIVE.

UM, GOOD EVENING.

I WANT TO THANK YOU, UM, FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME SPEAK TONIGHT.

I STAND BEFORE YOU TO DISCUSS A CAUSE THAT IS CLOSE TO OUR HEARTS.

[00:25:01]

THE CITY OF NEW BERN SUPPORT IN THE AMERICAN RED CROSS MISSION.

WE ALL KNOW THAT NEW BERN IS A COM A COMMUNITY THAT CARES DEEPLY FOR ITS MEMBERS.

WE COME TOGETHER IN TIMES OF NEED AND WE SUPPORT ONE ANOTHER THROUGH THICK AND THIN.

TODAY I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUING THIS TRADITION BATTLE OF THE BADGES.

FOR THOSE WHO REMEMBER, IT'S A PRIME EXAMPLE OF NEW BERN'S COMPASSION FOR THE COMMUNITY BY ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN THE AMERICAN RED CROSS LIFESAVING MISSION.

THE AMERICAN RED CROSS HAS BEEN AN INVALUABLE ORGANIZATION FOR OVER A CENTURY, TIRELESSLY WORKING TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO THOSE AFFECTED BY A DISASTER AND AN EMERGENCY.

ONE OF THE CRITICAL ROLES IN ENSURING THE STABLE AND SAFE BLOOD SUPPLY IS FOR OUR HOSPITALS AND CLINICS.

AND THIS IS WHERE WE COME IN.

THE NEED FOR BLOOD IS CONSTANT AND IT KNOWS NO SEASON OR CIRCUMSTANCE.

WHETHER IT'S A PATIENT UNDERGOING SURGERY, A CANCER PATIENT RECEIVING TREATMENT, OR AN ACCIDENT VICTIM IN THE ER.

THEY ALL DEPEND ON THE GEN GENEROSITY OF DONORS LIKE YOU AND I.

WHEN WE DONATE BLOOD, WE ARE QUITE LITERALLY GIVING THE GIFT OF LIFE.

BUT THE SITUATION WE FACE TODAY IS VERY CHALLENGING.

THE ONGOING CHALLENGES FROM THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC, IT HAS DISRUPTED BLOOD DONATIONS LEADING INTO MANY SHORTAGES IN OUR COMMUNITY AND ACROSS OUR COUNTRY.

THE SHORTAGES COULD IMPACT THE LIVES OF OUR LOVED ONES, OUR FRIENDS, OUR NEIGHBORS WHO REQUIRE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS.

I WOULD LIKE TO SINCERELY THANK THE CITY OF NEW BERN FOR THE COMMITMENT OF OUR MISSION FOR PARTNERING WITH THE AMERICAN RED CROSS AND FOR BECOMING ONE OF OUR PREMIER PARTNERS IN THIS COMMUNITY.

YOUR PARTICIPATION DOES NOT GO UNNOTICED AND WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

SINCE OUR BATTLE OF THE BADGES AND UNITED BADGES CAMPAIGN STARTED IN 2018, WE HAVE SEEN 258 FIRST TIME DONORS, 523 CITY EMPLOYEES, AND WE HAVE COLLECTED 1,695 PINTS SAVING UP TO 5,085 LIVES.

IT IS A SIMPLE BUT YET PROFOUND WAY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

YOU DON'T NEED TO BE A SUPERHERO TO SAVE A LIFE.

ALL IT TAKES IS THE WILLINGNESS TO GIVE.

ADDITIONALLY, REMEMBER THAT ONE PINT CAN SAVE UP TO THREE LIVES.

THINK ABOUT THE IMPACT WE CAN HAVE COLLECTIVELY.

IF WE ALL COME TOGETHER TO SUPPORT OUR CALLS.

WE CAN BE THE LIFELINE FOR SOMEONE IN NEED, THE FAMILY FACING A MEDICAL CRISIS.

LET US SHOW OUR RESILIENCE AS A COMMUNITY AND UNITE IN SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS MISSION.

OUR NEXT BLOOD DRIVE IS IN JULY.

SO MARK YOUR CALENDARS.

BUT WE TRULY MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND I ENCOURAGE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU TO COME OUT, SEE IT, SEE THE CITY, UM, IN THIS AMAZING EVENT.

IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO MAKING NEWBURN A COMPASSIONATE AND CARING PLACE TO LIVE.

TOGETHER WE CAN ENSURE THAT NO ONE IN OUR COMMUNITY SUFFERS DUE TO A SHORTAGE OF BLOOD.

YOUR GENEROSITY WILL SAVE LIVES.

AND THAT MY FRIENDS, IS A LEGACY WORTH LIVING.

ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE CERTIFICATE TO MR. HUGHES AND HIS TEAM IN APPRECIATION OF YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT IN THE CITY.

BLOOD DRIVES THE BATTLE OF THE BADGES AND THANK YOU FOR COMING ONE OF OUR PREMIER PARTNERS AND LET'S MAKE THE, UM, UPCOMING AMERICAN RED CROSS A ASTOUNDING SUCCESS.

MR. HUGHES, YOU GOT ANY WORDS AFTER THAT? WE LOVE TO SUPPORT THE RED CROSS AND ALL THE EFFORTS THEY DO AND HELP THEM TO SAVE LIVES FOR THE, FOR THE CITIZENS OF NOT ONLY THIS CITY BUT OUR COMMUNITY AND THE, AND THE, AND THE WORLD.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO HELP OUT.

VERY GOOD.

UH, ITEM NUMBER 11 HAS BEEN TABLED, SO

AND THANK YOU FOR THAT RECOGNITION.

[00:30:01]

[12. Conduct a Public Hearing and Considering Adopting an Amendment to Section 15- 343 — "Flexibility in Administration Required" of the Code of Ordinances.]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 12.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERING ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15 3 43.

FLEXIBILITY AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIRED OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCE.

MS. RU ONE OF THESE DAYS, YOUR HONOR, GONNA LET ME PRESENT AN AWARD INSTEAD OF A MESS OF CLEANUP EFFORT, .

BUT HERE WE ARE TONIGHT.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I THINK LAST MEETING WE HAD, SCOTT DID A REALLY GREAT JOB OF INTRODUCING THIS ISSUE.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT STICKY.

UM, I'M GOING TO FURTHER WHY THIS ORDINANCE NEEDS SOME TYPE OF MODIFICATION AND GO AHEAD AND RECAP WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

SO IT'S BEEN DISCOVERED THAT THERE'S A HISTORY OF APPLYING PARKING STANDARDS, UH, INCORRECTLY IN WHAT MOST OF US WOULD CONSIDER TO BE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN NEW BERN.

AND IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME WHETHER THIS WAS DUE TO INATTENTION TO DETAIL OR HAVING TO APPLY A VERY OLD, UM, BANDAID AND COMPLICATED ORDINANCE OR A MISINTERPRETATION.

BUT DATING BACK TO ABOUT 2 20 17 UNTIL LATE 2022, THERE WERE MULTIPLE LEGACY STAFF PEOPLE ISSUING ZONING APPROVALS, UM, THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT QUITE SUPPORT AS WRITTEN.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WE HAVE BUSINESSES THAT ARE OPERATING OUT OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET THE STRICT LETTER OF THE PARKING ORDINANCE.

AND FOR MOST OF THEM, IT'S THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.

AND SO I'M SURE SITTING UP HERE, A NORMAL PERSON MIGHT WONDER WHY THIS HAPPENED.

AND I CAN'T ANSWER THAT FOR YOU, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WHEN THIS CAME TO MY ATTENTION, IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH LEGAL, WE IMMEDIATELY CHANGED OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES 'CAUSE THIS WASN'T A PROBLEM LIMITED TO DOWNTOWN.

AND WE NOW INCLUDE A ZONING COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE AND NOT SIMPLY A ZONING CHECK WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH AND LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS.

AND SO I WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT DIFFERENCE BEFORE I GET INTO THE PRESENTATION.

SO IF YOU CALL FOR A ZONING CHECK, YOU'RE GONNA SAY, HEY, I GOT THIS ADDRESS.

I WANNA OPEN A BUSINESS.

IS THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS ALLOWED THERE? SOMEBODY ON THE PHONE IS GONNA SAY YES.

BUT IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A ZONING COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE, YOU ARE NOT ONLY GOING TO BE CHECKED FOR THAT, YOUR ZONING USE IS APPROVED, YOU ARE GOING TO BE HAVING TO BUY A PERMIT TO CHECK ALL THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO ZONING, WHICH WILL INCLUDE YOUR SETBACKS, YOUR HEIGHT LIMIT, HOW MUCH YOU CAN COVER YOUR PARKING SPACES, FOR INSTANCE, AND ANY OTHER EXTRA STANDARDS OR MITIGATION MEASURES THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UM, AND OTHER LAND USE ORDINANCES MAY OR MAY NOT, UM, REQUIRE FOR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

AND SO UNDER THE FORMER PROCESS ONLY DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR THROUGH A A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW, WE'RE GETTING THAT LEVEL OF SCRUTINY.

AND THAT WAS AN ANTIQUATED WAY OF OPERATING AND WE NEEDED TO UPDATE IT.

AND WE HAVE, SO WE'RE MOVING FORWARD IN A MUCH BETTER MANNER.

SO THERE IS A BOUNDARY DOWNTOWN, WHAT WE CONSIDER DOWNTOWN, AND IT'S DESCRIBED AS THE CENTRAL RETAIL CORE.

AND THAT'S EXEMPT FROM PARKING STANDARDS THROUGH THE ORDINANCE.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS DOWN HERE.

BUT IN REALITY, THE AREA THAT YOU WOULD ASSUME IS OUR HISTORIC, UH, DOWNTOWN CENTRAL CORE DISTRICT, UM, IT'S, IT'S VERY LIMITED NEXT TO WHAT ACTUALLY IS ON THE GROUND.

BECAUSE OVER TIME OUR CENTRAL RETAIL CORE IS, IS A GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE, HAS EXPANDED THIS WAY.

UM, AND IT'S MY BELIEF THAT WHAT HAS HAPPENED WAS THAT PREVIOUS STAFF MEMBERS BELIEVED THAT ALL OF HISTORIC DOWNTOWN, ANYTHING HISTORIC IN DOWNTOWN WAS EXEMPT FROM PARKING STANDARDS AND THEY WOULD APPROVE THE USE AND MOVE ON.

SO THAT'S WHY I TOOK THE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHY WE CHANGED THE PROCESS, BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS, THIS IS A LOT OF LAYERS OF PLANNING AND IS CONFUSING AND I'VE ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON IT.

UM, SO WHAT THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT IS TRYING TO DO IS IT'S TRYING TO CORRECT A PERMITTING PROBLEM BY MAKING WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN REALITY FOR YEARS MATCH WHAT'S ALLOWED ON PAPER AND AFFORD THE SAME PARKING EXEMPTIONS ALLOWED IN A VERY NARROW AREA.

AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A MAP OF THIS IN A LITTLE BIT, UM, TO A BROADER AREA THAT COMPOSES WHAT WE ACTUALLY THINK OF AS HISTORIC DOWNTOWN.

HOWEVER, IT TAKES IT A STEP FURTHER AND OFFERS SOME CONTROLS.

UM, THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

IT, IT ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES ALMOST ALL PARKING THAT EXISTS ON ON THE DAY.

IF ANY CHANGES GET ADOPTED HAS TO REMAIN WITH VERY LIMITED EXCEPTIONS.

LARGE AREAS AND PARCELS THAT ARE PRIMED FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR NOT HISTORIC IN THAT AREA ARE NOT INCLUDED IN IN THE WAY THE MAP IS DRAWN.

SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A PARKING EXCEPTION.

[00:35:01]

IT PURPOSELY EXCLUDES SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

SO ANYTHING WITHIN HERE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT AND ALLOWED TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THAT PARKING.

THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE THAT.

AND I'LL POINT OUT WHERE THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S REFERENCED THROUGH A NUMBER, NOT THROUGH WORDS.

THE THE WAY THAT OUR ORDINANCE CURRENTLY IS WORDED.

AND I'LL REMIND EVERYBODY JUST THIS WEEK WE PUT OUT AN R F Q TO START OUR NEW ONE.

UM, AND IT ALSO ACCOMMODATES THE FACT AS MOST OF OUR OTHER SISTER CITIES THAT ARE HISTORIC AND ON THE COAST DO IT, ACCOMMODATES THE FACT WE HAVE ALMOST 600 PUBLIC PARKING SPACES, MOST OF WHICH ARE FREE, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 374 SPACES THAT ARE ON THE STREET.

SO THE 600 ARE IN LOTS THAT ARE THE PUBLIC SPACES.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE 374 ON STREET PARKING SPACES BRINGING US UP TO CLOSE TO A THOUSAND PARKING SPACES THAT NOBODY IS INCLUDED ALLOWED TO INCLUDE IN THEIR PARKING CUT CALCULATIONS.

UM, AND SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA PAUSE AND SEE IF SCOTT HAS ANYTHING TO ADD BEFORE I START TALKING ABOUT SOME UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS TO OUR, YOU ARE DOING GREAT.

KEEP GOING.

NOT AS FUN AS AN AWARD, BUT IT'S NOT AN AWARD YOU'RE DOING.

UH, IN PART OF OUR DOWNTOWN FOR A BUSINESS TO OPEN UNDER THE NEW WAY THAT WE ARE DOING PERMITTING WHERE YOU HAVE TO GET THAT ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT.

SO WE WE'RE, WE'RE A UNIQUE AREA.

NEW BERN WAS DESIGNED BEFORE WE HAD A NEED TO ACCOMMODATE VEHICLES.

WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT, THAT THAT IS LIKE THE FIRST STEP IN OUR PROBLEM.

WE'VE GOT THESE AWESOME BUILDINGS DOWN HERE THAT WERE BUILT IN 17, 1800.

BUT ONE OF OUR CHARMING FEATURES, UM, IS THESE BUILDINGS AND THAT WE DESIRE TO RETAIN THEM.

IT LITERALLY SAYS THAT IN EVERY PLAN THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED IN THIS CITY, IT'S THE ONE THING THEY ALL HAVE STREAMLINED AND ARE IN COMMON.

AND SO, UH, THERE IS A DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT ENFORCING PARKING STANDARDS THAT ARE SO STRICT FOR BUSINESSES THAT ARE, UH, THRIVING DOWNTOWN, UM, TO NEED TO REMOVE BUILDINGS SO THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE PARKING.

THIS IS A VERY DELICATE BALANCE AND I ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY REALIZED, HEY, WE'VE GOT THESE BUILDINGS OR ZERO OUTLINES, THEY WEREN'T DESIGNED WITH PARKING AND MAYBE WE SHOULD OFFER A SATELLITE OPTION.

AND SO THEY BUILT THAT OPTION INTO THE ORDINANCE.

UM, SO WHAT DOES THAT OPTION DO? IT SAYS, WELL, WITHIN 600 FEET OF WHERE YOU'RE LOCATED, IF YOU CAN FIND SOME EXTRA PARKING TO MEET THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES YOU HAVE, YOU CAN LEASE THAT.

YOU CAN SHOW US THAT AND YOU CAN MOVE ON AND GET YOUR, YOUR PERMIT AND OPEN YOUR BUSINESS.

WELL, IN ACTUALITY, IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR AN ACTUAL BUSINESS, WHICH TYPICALLY REQUIRES ONE PARKING SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FOOT OF AREA IN THAT BUILDING TO GO AND FIND THAT VOLUME OF PARKING SPACES TO SAY, OKAY, I'M DOWN HERE, THIS IS WHERE MY ALL MY PARKING IS, UM, AND MOVE ON.

SO I DON'T FEEL THAT'S A VIABLE OPTION, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S BUILT IN THERE.

WHERE THAT IS A VIABLE OPTION IS IF YOU WANNA OPEN A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR AN AIRBNB, AND MAYBE YOU'VE ONLY GOT ONE SPACE THERE, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE THREE AND YOU'VE GOT A BUSINESS ACROSS THE STREET THAT'S GOT AN EXTRA TUBE THAT CAN DE YOU CAN RENT AND DEDICATE.

THAT'S WHERE THAT OPTION DOES US SOME GOOD.

SO IS IT USELESS WORDS? NO.

BUT DOES IT FIX A A BUSINESS PARKING PROBLEM DOWNTOWN? IT DOES NOT.

AND AGAIN, WE'VE GOT ABOUT THOSE A THOUSAND FREE PARKING SPACES DOWN HERE IN THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY THAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT.

AND SO THAT WAS ACCOMMODATED BECAUSE THAT IS A FACTOR IN ALL OTHER PLACES THAT HAVE SIMILAR ORDINANCES THAT EXPAND OR, OR EXEMPT PARKING STANDARDS IN CERTAIN AREAS SUCH AS, UM, OUR DOWNTOWN IS.

AND SO AGAIN, PRIOR TO MODERNIZING THE PERMITTING PROCESSES, WE KNOW OF A HANDFUL OF BUSINESSES THAT HAVE OPENED WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVE, UH, THOSE PARKING ORDINANCES.

AND I BELIEVE THAT HA HAPPENED BECAUSE THEY SAID, THIS IS THE USE I WANT TO OPEN, AND WE'RE TOLD, OKAY, AND THAT'S WHERE IT ENDED.

UM, AND SO THIS IS A SITUATION THAT WE ARE LEFT TO DEAL WITH.

UM, WE'VE ALSO GOT SOME BUSINESSES, UH, THAT HAVE NOT GOTTEN ZONING APPROVALS TO MODIFY THEIR PROPERTIES.

AND SO THEY HAVE BEEN ISSUED PERMITS TO BUILD DECKS INTO AREAS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PARKING, UH, SPACES, AND, UH, ONE OR TWO OF THEM HAVE OPENED OUTDOOR DINING AREAS.

WELL, THAT IS A PROBLEM WHEN YOU DON'T GET A ZONING APPROVAL.

WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM? BECAUSE THE ZONING ORDINANCE SAYS IF YOU'VE GOT DINING, YOU NEED TO HAVE THIS AMOUNT OF SPACE, BUT THEN IF YOU'VE GOT OUTDOOR DINING, YOU NEED TO HAVE EXTRA.

SO NOT ONLY ARE YOU REMOVING PARKING SPACES THAT EXISTED, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT TO STOP.

UH, YOU'RE ALSO EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT YOU ARE TECHNICALLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE IF YOU ARE USING THOSE ZONING, UM, PARKING STANDARDS THAT ARE DESIGNED REALLY FOR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, OUT ON HIGHWAY 17 THAT HAS ALL THE SPACE IN THE WORLD TO ACCOMMODATE THAT VOLUME OF PARKING.

AND SO IT IS VERY DIFFICULT,

[00:40:01]

AND AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I SPENT THE TIME EXPLAINING WHAT THAT WAS.

AND SO I AM FACED WITH THE CHALLENGE OF TAKING TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD THIS PROBLEM, GETTING THEM TO UNDERSTAND THE MANY LAYERS OF IT AND SAYING, WE NEED TO FIND SOME MECHANISM TO RECOMMEND TO TRY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.

BECAUSE NOT OPENING BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN IS NOT A SOLUTION, NOR IS PERMITTING BUSINESSES THAT DON'T MEET OUR ORDINANCES AND LAWS.

SO THIS IS WHERE WE GOT STARTED.

TYPICALLY, YOU'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE LAND AND LOOK AT CHARACTERISTICS THAT LAND SHARES.

AND SO WHAT THEY DID WAS LOOK AT FIRST THE AREA THAT WAS EXEMPT AND THEY WORKED FROM THERE.

WHEN I TOOK THIS PROBLEM TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND PRESENTED IT AS AN ISSUE FROM STAFF IN LEGAL, I GAVE THEM THE OPTION OF NOT PURSUING THIS AND, AND PUNTING THIS DOWN THE ROAD TO THE CONSULTANT THAT'S GOING TO WORK ON, ON FIXING ALL OF OUR OTHER ORDINANCES WITH US.

AND THEY THOUGHT THIS, UH, ISSUE WAS TOO IMPORTANT TO LEAVE ON THE TABLE FOR A YEAR OR TWO.

AND, UH, THEY TOOK THE STEPS TO START EVALUATING IT NOW, WHICH I I BELIEVE WAS, WAS GOOD, UM, BECAUSE THEY'VE GIVEN IT QUITE A BIT OF DEBATE AND THEY ARE THIRSTY IF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT WELL RECEIVED TO GET FEEDBACK TO KEEP WORKING ON THIS AND TO, TO OFFER A SOLUTION WHETHER IT IS THE ONE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT OR NOT.

AND SO THERE WAS A RECOGNITION THAT THE LEGACY WAY OF OPERATING WAS NOT HOW THEY WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD.

THEY SUPPORTED STAFF AND MOVING TO THE SYSTEM OF ISSUING A ZONING COMPLIANCE PERMIT.

AND THEY ASKED US TO GO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER PLACES WERE DOING.

NOW, NORMALLY THIS IS THE PART OF THE PRESENTATION WHERE I WOULD SAY, HERE'S A CHART OF 10 DIFFERENT COASTAL CITIES, AND THIS IS HOW THEY'RE DOING THIS IN THEIR HISTORIC AREAS.

I CAN'T DO THAT FOR YOU BECAUSE EVERYBODY DOES THE SAME THING.

THEY EXEMPT IT IF THEY HAVE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES WITHOUT FAIL, EVERYWHERE ELSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THEIR DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES TO MEET PARKING ORDINANCES.

AND SO STAFF REACHED ALL THE WAY OUT, UM, TO AREAS AS FAR WEST AS GREENSBORO, EVEN JUST LOOKING AT OTHER HISTORIC AREAS.

AND THIS IS, THIS IS HOW IT IS TYPICALLY HANDLED, ALTHOUGH EVERYBODY DRAWS THEIR MAPS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

AND I'LL GET TO THE METHODOLOGY BEHIND WHY OUR MAP IS BEING PROPOSED AS IT IS.

AND SO, UH, WE STUDIED THE MAP, WE LOOKED AT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS THIS LIMITED FOUR BLOCK AREA, BUT IT HAD VERY SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS TO AN EXPANDED AREA.

AND THEY ASKED US TO START STAFF TO START WORKING ON REVISING THE MAP.

THEY ALSO SAID, WE DO NOT WANT TO MESS WITH THE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

WE LIKE WHAT IT SAYS, NO MATTER WHAT CHANGES, WE ARE NOT EXEMPTING THAT.

AND SO THAT REMAINS A FEATURE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO YOU TONIGHT.

THEY DIRECTED STAFF TO INCLUDE ELEMENTS THAT PROTECTS THE PARKING THAT IS ON THE GROUND ALREADY.

SO WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? UM, WE WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A MAP THAT EXPLAINS THE WORDS THAT ARE AT THE TOP OF THE SLIDE.

WE WE'RE MAINTAINING THE SHORT TERM RENTALS AND WE ARE PROHIBITING ANY PARKING SPACES THAT EXIST WITHIN THIS BOUNDARY FROM BEING ELIMINATED WITH ONE EXCEPTION.

NOBODY IS EVER COMFORTABLE IN AN ORDINANCE SAYING YOU CAN NEVER DO SOMETHING RIGHT? AND SO THE SOLUTION AND THE COMPROMISE HERE WAS TO SAY, LET'S LET THE QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAKE THAT DECISION.

AND SO SEVERAL DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS OVER THE FIVE MONTH PERIOD WERE DRAFTED AND ULTIMATELY THE ONE THAT IS COMING RECOMMENDED TO YOU MAINTAINS THAT OPTION THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE PARKING, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO GO OR ASK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION AND WEIGH THE CRITERIA.

UH, YOU KNOW, WOULD WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF US ALLOWING YOU TO DO THIS KIND OF THING.

SO THIS BRINGS US TO OUR LAST PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING, WHICH WAS ON SEPTEMBER 5TH.

UM, THEY REVIEWED WHAT THEY HAD ASKED AND WHAT HAD BEEN MODIFIED AND HAS COME TO YOU, COMING TO YOU WITH ONE DISSENTING VOTE.

YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THE EMAIL ABOUT THE CONCERNS FROM THE VOTER WHO DISSENTED.

AND I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH THESE BECAUSE THEY ARE VALID CONCERNS THEY WERE CONSIDERED.

UM, AND I I DO BELIEVE THEY WARRANT SOME ATTENTION.

THE FIRST WAS THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH DATA TO SUPPORT A CHANGE.

MY STAFF RESPONSE TO NOT HAVING ENOUGH DATA IS THAT ANYTIME I'M AWARE

[00:45:01]

WE ARE ISSUING PERMITS THAT DON'T MEET OUR ORDINANCE, UM, TO ME THAT IS DATA THAT A CHANGE IS WARRANTED.

FOOD.

I BELIEVE THESE COMMENTS WERE MOSTLY, UH, RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO DATA ON HOW MANY ACTUAL BUSINESSES HAVE BEEN DENIED PERMITS TO OPEN.

THE PROBLEM WITH PROVIDING THAT DATA TO YOU ALL IS THAT MOST OF THE TIME IT'S A PHONE CALL AND IT ENDS THERE.

SOMEBODY'S NOT COMING IN WHEN THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T DO SOMETHING, DOING THE PERMIT AND WE'RE DENYING IT AND WE'RE PUTTING IN THE STACK.

AND I CAN GO TO YOU AND SAY, I I DENIED NINE PERMITS.

IT'S, THAT'S JUST NOT HOW IT WORKS IN REALITY.

THE NEXT WAS THAT THERE WAS NOT AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING AREAS.

UM, IT IS TRUE WE DID NOT HIRE A FIRM OR ENGAGE ANYONE TO DO A STUDY IF THIS WOULD CAUSE OVERFLOW PARKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY SO THAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A VALID CONCERN, NO CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE AREA'S GROWTH.

UM, I DO BELIEVE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD GAVE A LOT OF CONSIDERATION TO, TO THE GROWTH.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS, AS YOU SEE WHERE THE MAP IS DRAWN, WE KNOW THE AREAS THAT ARE HIGHLY LIKELY GOING TO GROW, THAT ARE POISED FOR SOME REDEVELOPMENT, HOPEFULLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE OR THE MEDIUM TO NEAR FUTURE.

AND THEY SAID WE DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE THIS PASS.

THIS PASS IS INTENDED FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS, PRIMARILY HISTORIC ONES.

WE ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE TO BE ADAPTIVELY REUSED.

AND THEN ALSO, AGAIN, THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE DATA ON THE NUMBER OF PERMITS DENIED AND THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE THAT EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE PERIMETER.

UM, THE REST OF THE BOARD DID NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF THOSE SENTIMENTS.

AND THAT IS HOW IT GOT THE FAVORABLE VOTE TO COME TO YOU FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND FOR FURTHER INPUT.

THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ENTIRE CHANGE.

IT'S, THIS IS, IT ALL FITS ON THIS ONE SLIDE.

IT IS A REDEFINITION OF, UM, IN WORDS OF THE BOUNDARY OF WHERE THIS DISTRICT WOULD BE.

WHAT YOU SEE ACCEPT THOSE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION 15 DASH 1 63 H THREE FOR CLARITY THAT SAYS WE ARE NOT EXEMPTING THOSE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

THAT'S JUST FANCY ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

THAT'S WHAT THAT'S SAYING.

AND THAT YOU'RE NOT TAKING AWAY THOSE PARKING SPACES UNLESS YOU GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF THEY EXIST UPON THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.

AND THAT IS IT IN A NUTSHELL, FIVE MONTHS OF WORK BEFORE YOU HERE IS WHAT, UH, OUR REALITY IS LOOKING LIKE.

WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IN YELLOW? THE EASIEST PART, THIS IS THE PART ALREADY.

IF YOU OPEN A BUSINESS IN THIS YELLOW PART, IF YOU COME ON DOWN, YOU WANT YOUR ZONING, UH, COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE.

PARKING IS NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IF YOU'RE IN THAT OVERLAY DOWNTOWN, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS TO AFFORD THE, THAT SAME, UM, KIND OF RE RELAXED STANDARD TO THE RED HATCHED AREA.

SO YOU'LL SEE NORTH OF BROAD STREET THERE, IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BOUNDARY.

AND THEN EAST OF EAST FRENCH STREET WHERE THE MARRIOTT IS AND RIGHT NORTH OF THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CONVENTION CENTER HAS BEEN INCLUDED AND I'VE BEEN QUESTIONED, WELL, WHY WAS BY SEVERAL PEOPLE WHY WAS THE CONVENTION CENTER INCLUDED? UH, YOU'LL NOTICE ALL OF THESE LARGE PARKING LOTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS BOUNDARY.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE IF, IF THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE IS ADOPTED, THAT PROTECTS THAT PARKING PERPETUALLY, UM, WITHOUT A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL.

SO IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ELIMINATE IT.

A COUPLE OF STEPS WE CAN TAKE.

SO, UM, ONE OF COURSE IS TO GET PUBLIC INPUT AND ADOPT IT AS, AS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU.

YOU AS THE GOVERNING BODY CAN CHANGE IT TONIGHT.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE OPTION FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UM, OPTION TO REDUCE PARKING, YOU CAN TAKE THAT OUT.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE LINE IS DRAWN OR YOU HAVE WANT THE LINE DRAWN FURTHER, WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE TONIGHT.

IF YOU HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT AND FEEL THIS, UH, NEEDS MORE STUDY, YOU CAN SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACCOMPANIED BY DIRECTION OF WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE WHEN WE BRING THIS BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

OR IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU CAN DIRECT THE PLANNING AND BOARD PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, UM, TO START TO STUDY OTHER PARKING ISSUES.

ONE OF WHICH IS, UM, AND THIS IS A ACCOMMODATED IN OUR WISHLIST FOR OUR NEW ORDINANCE.

[00:50:01]

UH, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM CAUSED BY THE FACT RESIDENTS, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN HISTORIC AREAS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR OWN PARKING SPACE.

AND SO THEY ARE ALSO RELYING ON ON STREET PARKING.

AND THESE ARE TWO PROBLEMS THAT KIND OF COME TOGETHER.

UM, AND, AND THIS ONE HAS NOT YET BEEN STUDIED BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PERMITTING ISSUE, RIGHT.

QUITE IN FRONT OF US.

BURNING, LIKE PERMITTING THE BUSINESSES IS, I JUST TALKED A LOT.

SCOTT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO, THAT WAS, THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY.

I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE, AND LEAVE IT ON THE MAP FOR FOUR, HAVE QUESTIONS.

UM, I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DISCUSS, BUT UM, WE'RE HERE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND I KNOW THAT I THINK WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT A FEW PEOPLE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC.

AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR THEM FIRST BEFORE I OFFER ANY COMMENTS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.

AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND BOARD AND STAFF.

HOW ARE YOU? GOOD, THANK YOU.

UM, SO PARKING IS COMPLICATED, , AND I LOOKED AT THE ORDINANCE AND I SPOKE, UM, TO MR. RU, BUT, UM, BEFORE THE MEETING THIS EVENING AND SHE TRIED TO BASICALLY EXPLAIN IT, BUT IT'S STILL, UM, IT'S CONFOUNDING TO ME.

I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD, BUT I DON'T.

SO I'M ASKING IF THE BOARD PAUSE TONIGHT AND NOT TO REVISE THE ORDINANCE AT THE TIME AND, UM, BEGIN TO PERHAPS REESTABLISH, UM, A PARKING ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH LOOKS AT ELIMINATING OFF STREET PARKING IN THE PROPOSED AREA AND HOW IT COULD AFFECT DOWNTOWN AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

SO THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU MAYOR ALDERMAN.

MY NAME IS JIM POLO, 2 2 3 CRAMOND STREET.

UM, I JUST, UH, WANTED CLARITY, DOES THE CURRENT, UM, ORDINANCE, PERMIT THE BOARD TO GIVE A VARIANCE OR AN EXCEPTION TO AN EXISTING PROPERTY? CAN THAT BE DONE WITHOUT CHANGING THE ENTIRE EVENTS SO THAT THE ENTIRE AREA DOESN'T HAVE TO APPLY? YES, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE? MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

DENIAL OF A SPECIAL U UH, USE PERMIT CAN BE EXTRAORDINARILY COSTLY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE THOSE DENIALS OFTENTIMES COME WITH ATTORNEY'S FEES ON APPEAL.

, UH, DID ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? I HAD A QUESTION.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

I DON'T REMEMBER.

SO, UM, I GUESS TO GO OFF OF, UM, DR.

POLO'S QUESTION, UM, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, OR THE THOUGHT PROCESS, I KNOW IT SAYS SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THE, UM, DRAFT LANGUAGE NOW AND IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO BRING IT OR WHAT WAS THE CONSIDERATION TO BRING IT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN? IS THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD THEN BE A VARIANCE OR YOU KNOW, IT INSTEAD OF SENDING IT TO A SEMI JUDICIAL BODY, YOU SEND IT TO THE POLITICAL BODY? UM, HOW WOULD, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? WHAT ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS? YES, SIR.

AND WHY WAS THAT? YOU KNOW, DID THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CONSIDER THAT? YES, SIR.

EXCELLENT QUESTION.

UM, AND YOU HIT AROUND THE HEAD, THIS IS A POLITICAL BODY, NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY.

AND OVER 30 YEARS OF TRYING TO CONVINCE ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS OF A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, YOUR INSTINCTS ARE TO BE LEGISLATIVE AND DO WHAT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT AND YOU WILL MAKE A MISTAKE IN THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS BECAUSE OF POLITICS.

SO WE TAKE THAT PROCESS AND WE PUT IT IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SO THAT THEY WILL SIMPLY FOLLOW THE SIX ELEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE DEALT WITH IN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS WITHOUT THE PRESSURE OF POLITICS PULLING THEM IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER.

MISTAKES UPON THE, UH,

[00:55:01]

SO WE TRY TO AVOID THAT.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, JUST WAS CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT I RECEIVED AND THE EMAILS THAT THE BOARD RECEIVED AND THE, UM, CONCERN OF THE COMMUNITY, UM, WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS, MS. RU, HAS THERE BEEN ATTENDANCE FROM, UH, RESIDENTS OR BUSINESSES? HAS IT BEEN ELEVATED SINCE THIS PROCESS OF FIVE MONTHS AGO? OR HAS THERE BEEN ANY SPECIAL MEETINGS PER SE WITH THOSE THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED BEING THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UH, CONCERN EXPRESSED? NO, THERE, THERE WERE NO COMMENTS IN VERY LOW ATTENDANCE AT THE, UM, PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETINGS, PARTICULARLY SINCE THIS GOT SO MUCH MEDIA ATTENTION.

THANK YOU SCOTT.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU FROM WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THAT ONCE THIS PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER THAT THEY CROSSED THE T AND DOTTED THE I, SO PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE BY LAW.

WELL THIS ADOPTION OF A SOLUTION TO THIS LEGAL PROBLEM MM-HMM.

IS, IS ON THE TABLE AND I THINK JESS DID A GREAT JOB OF, OF GIVING YOU YOUR OPTIONS.

I I THINK SIMPLY PUT, THE FACTS ARE NOT GONNA CHANGE.

THERE'S NO MORE TO DIGEST AT ALL AFTER WHAT JESS HAS TOLD YOU TONIGHT.

OR IF IT IMMEDIATELY CHANGES USE, IT MUST CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW USE.

I THINK THE, THE TWO VARIABLES ARE WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADOPT THAT WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OFF RAMP OR NOT, MEANING STRIKE THROUGH THAT SPECIAL USE PERMIT OPTION AND WHICH TO ME SIMPLY LOCKS IN THE STATUS QUO.

IF YOU ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED AND STRIKE THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, IT FREEZES IN PLACE THE PARKING THAT EXISTS AND YOU CAN'T COVER UP OR REUSE OR REPURPOSE ANY PARKING YOU CURRENTLY HAVE.

THAT'S ONE VARIABLE TO CONSIDER.

THE SECOND ONE IS SIMPLY WHERE TO DRAW THE LINES IF THE CONVENTION CENTER IS CONFUSING OR BOTHERSOME OR IS THERE SOME PARCEL YOU WANT TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE REDRAWING.

THAT LINE IS A, IS A VARIABLE FOR DISCUSSION.

BUT BEYOND THOSE TWO VARIABLES, WE HAVE A LEGAL PROBLEM THAT NEEDS A SOLUTION.

IT'S NOT A REALLY A POLITICAL PROBLEM, IT'S NOT A FACTUAL PROBLEM.

IT'S WHAT DOES JESS DO WHEN A BUSINESS CHANGES USE AND THEY CAN'T COMPLY WITH THE PARKING ORDINANCE.

SHE'S GONNA DENY THAT PERMIT CORRECT.

AND THAT PERSON'S GONNA GET A LAWYER AND CALL ME AND POINT OUT THE HALF DOZEN OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE IN OPERATION THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

AND I'M GONNA COME TO YOU AND I'M GONNA SAY, WHAT SHALL WE DO? SHALL WE GO SUE THESE SIX OTHER BUSINESSES FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE WHEN THEY'VE TRULY DONE NOTHING WRONG? THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY WEREN'T IN COMPLIANCE AND NO ONE EVER TOLD THEM? OR DO WE DENY THE PERSON THE PERMIT RECOGNIZING THAT WE'VE GOT SIX PRIOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE.

THIS PROPOSAL JUST SIMPLY LOCKS IN.

IF YOU'VE GOT PARKING, KEEP YOUR PARKING, DON'T MAKE IT LESS, BUT IF YOUR BUSINESS CHANGES ITS USE YOUR BUS, YOUR BUILDING WON'T SIT VACANT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT COMPLY WITH PARKING.

GOT IT.

CAN WE IDENTIFY THE SIX BUSINESSES THAT WE'RE REFERENCING BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY ? WELL, I I, I HATE TO, I HATE TO SHAME ANYBODY FOR, UH, FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG.

BUT, BUT I WILL PICK ON ONE ONLY BECAUSE IT, IT'S, IT'S SO CLEARLY OBVIOUS AND THEY'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME AND THAT'S BLACK BEARDS.

BLACK BEARDS WAS WHEN I WAS GROWING UP A BROKERAGE FIRM, A STOCK BROKERAGE FIRM.

AND AT THAT TIME IN THE SEVENTIES, IT WAS GRANDFATHERED.

IT DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH PARKING, DIDN'T HAVE ANY, IT WAS AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE.

THAT BUILDING THEN SET VACANT FOR A LONG TIME, AT LEAST A DECADE.

WHEN A BUILDING IS NOT BEING USED FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS BEING OFFERED FOR SALE, IT LOSES THAT NON-CONFORMING STATUS.

[01:00:02]

SO THAT BUILDING WENT FROM A BROKERAGE FIRM TO EMPTY TO A RESTAURANT, AND THERE IS PHYSICALLY NO PARKING ON THAT PARCEL.

SO ABSENT THIS CHANGE IN THE RULE, THEY COULD NOT GET A ZONING PERMIT TO OPERATE ANY BUSINESS THERE.

IT WOULD HAVE TO SIT VACANT, WHICH IS WHY CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY WITH HISTORIC DISTRICTS EXEMPT THEM.

THERE'S NO OTHER PRACTICAL SOLUTION.

WHAT'S, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, UM, IN THIS IS ONE OPTION THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHERE OTHER OPTIONS EXPLORED.

UH, SO THERE, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WERE BRIEFLY PRESENTED.

HOWEVER, THEY SAW THIS AS SUCH A COMMONSENSICAL SOLUTION THAT THIS IS WHERE THEY FOCUSED ON.

AND THEN LOOKING AT WHERE THE BOUNDARY WAS TO DO THIS.

YOU, WE HAVE A VERY SMALL STAFF AND A VERY HIGH VOLUME OF LAND USE ORDINANCES.

AND ANYTIME, UH, I MEAN I COULD WRITE YOU SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU DRAW A PERIMETER FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF YOUR PROPERTY AND IF THERE'S PUBLIC PARKING WITHIN 511 FEET OF IT, THEN YOU COULD QUALIFY.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS THE RIGHT, UH, SOLUTION FOR STAFF TO PROPOSE.

AND SO IN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH JAMIE ON CRAFTING THE OPTIONS TO GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, UM, MORE TEXTUAL SOLUTIONS LIKE THAT, WERE NOT, WERE NOT HEAVILY CONSIDERED THE PROB THE THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE NO, THERE, THERE MAY BE OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE THAT HAVEN'T YET BEEN DISCUSSED OR EXPLORED.

AND I'M OPEN TO HEAR THEM BECAUSE WE COULDN'T FIND ANY.

I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR 'EM BECAUSE, UM, BUT AT THIS 30 YEARS AND, UM, I, ONE, I DON'T KNOW HOW ONE OVERCOMES PHYSICS.

THERE ARE SIM THERE'S SIMPLY NO MORE GEOGRAPHY TO PARK.

WELL IS, LET ME ASK, UM, UM, SCOTT, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.

QUESTION IS, IS THERE AN OPTION OF THESE, YOU KNOW, TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE WITH REGARDS TO THESE SIX BUSINESSES? IS THERE THE ABILITY FOR THIS BODY TO TAKE SOME FORMAL ACTION TO GRANDFATHER WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MISTAKES WERE MADE IN THE PAST, OUR MISTAKES, THE CITY'S MISTAKES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND TO TAKE SOME FORMAL ACTION TO GRANDFATHER THOSE SIX BUSINESSES? WHICH WOULD, IF IF THERE IS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, THEN DOESN'T THAT TAKE THE LEGAL CONCERN AWAY? IT IT DOES AND WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.

THE PRACTICAL QUESTION I WOULD RAISE IS WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE RED FOOTPRINT WHEN THEY HAVE A CHANGE OF USE AND THEY DON'T HAVE PARKING? I UNDERSTAND.

I'M TRYING TO BREAK THIS DOWN INTO SMALLER PIECES.

SURE, YES.

'CAUSE I, I, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE.

I MAY BE WRONG.

I'M NOT SURE THE BOARD, THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY BE FULLY APPRECIATE ALL, THAT'S ALL THAT'S INCORPORATED INTO THIS.

AND THAT WAS MY ARGUMENT AT THE LAST MEETING.

NOT TO GET INTO A DETAILED DISCUSSION THIS EVENING WHEN WE GOT OTHER BUSINESS THAT WE'VE GOTTA TAKE CARE OF AND, AND TO SET IT UP IN A DIFFERENT SETTING WHERE WE CAN FOCUS ON THAT DETAIL AND HAVE A THOROUGH, DETAILED DISCUSSION WITH STAFF AND EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS.

SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, AND I THINK YOU CONFIRMED IT, IS SHORT OF ADOPTING THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THE BOARD COULD TAKE ACTION TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL, LEGAL CONCERN RAISED BY THE MISTAKES THE CITY'S MADE IN THE PAST INVOLVING THOSE SIX BUSINESSES.

THAT'S ONE PIECE OF IT.

WE COULD DO THAT.

WHATEVER WE WOULD FRAMEWORK, WE COULD DO THAT AND WE WOULD REDRAW THE LINES TO AROUND THOSE PARCELS TO EXCLUDE THEM.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I, I'M HESITANT TO GET INTO ALL OF THE DETAIL 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE BOARD WANTS TO GET INTO THAT TONIGHT.

SO THERE'S AN, THERE'S AN OPTION THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT I DON'T BELIEVE HAS BEEN DIS DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

SO THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE COULD PURSUE FOR ONE PIECE OF THIS.

THEN WE CAN START TAKING A LOOK AT OTHER ISSUES, CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, UM, ABOUT THE, THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EXEMPTED AREA.

[01:05:03]

SO I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO WEIGH IN AS TO WHETHER YOU WANT TO SPEND TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS TONIGHT OR CAN WE AT LEAST LOOK AT DEFERRING THIS FOR A WEEK OR TWO WHERE WE CAN SET UP A SPECIAL MEETING OR SET UP SOME VENUE WHERE THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN SIT DOWN WITH STAFF TO WALK THROUGH ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT, THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THIS.

I'M NOT PREPARED TO SPEND AS MUCH TIME TONIGHT AS NECESSARY TO GET INTO THIS.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE REST OF THE BOARD WANTS TO DO THAT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MS. RUE POINTED OUT WAS THAT THERE ARE LOTS OF LAYERS.

UH, WE NEED A DELICATE BALANCE.

CONCERNS ARE VALID AND NEEDS ATTENTION.

I HEARD, UH, ONE OF THE RESIDENTS ADDRESSED THAT SHE WAS CONFUSED AND SHE NEEDED CLARITY.

AND IN LIGHT OF THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, UH, INSTEAD OF DRAWING IT OUT FOR A LENGTHY DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

BECAUSE AGAIN, ALDERMAN PRI SAYS HE HAS CONCERNS AND DEFINITELY WHAT TO HEAR HIS CONCERNS, THAT IF WE WOULD FIND ANOTHER, UH, UM, TIMING THAT WE COULD SIT DOWN WITH STAFF AND, AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND HOPEFULLY THAT EVEN WITH THE RESIDENTS, THAT WE CAN RESOLVE THIS.

UM, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL PARTIES ARE BEING HEARD AND THAT EVEN MYSELF CAN RECEIVE MORE CLARITY REGARDING THIS ISSUE.

WE'VE ALREADY KICKED TWO ITEMS IN THE NEXT MEETING, SO IT'S ALREADY LONGER.

IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THE NEXT MEETING.

IT COULD BE OUTSIDE OF THE NEXT MEETING, HOWEVER WE COULD ARRANGE IT.

IT'S A PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DISCUSSING IT TONIGHT.

ME NEITHER.

I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? I, I SAID I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DISCUSSING IT TONIGHT.

WE'RE HERE READY TO SERVE.

UM, THEN IF I MAY, I'LL, I'LL START WALKING THROUGH THE AREAS OF CONCERN THAT I HAVE.

UM, AND, AND MS. , SOME OF MY COMMENTS MAY COME ACROSS AS BEING A LITTLE CRITICAL.

UM, THEY'RE NOT MEANT TO BE CRITICAL OR ARGUMENTATIVE.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE DOING AS DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

PLEASE CONTINUE DOING IT.

UM, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE MAY BE TRYING TO GO TOO FAR IN ADDRESSING THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE.

AND WITH THAT, IF EVERYBODY HAS REVIEWED JESSICA'S IN EMAIL OR OR LETTER TO THE BOARD, MEMO TO THE BOARD, YOU TAKE NOTE AND, AND LET ME JUST READ IT.

THIS IS UNDER THE SECTION ENTITLED PROBLEMS AND IMPACTS.

THE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED ARE NOT INTENDED TO FIX ANY PERCEIVED PARKING PROBLEM.

THE CITY MAY HAVE OR MAY NOT HAVE THAT CHANGES OR A SOLUTION TO A PERMITTING PROBLEM.

AND, AND JESSICA CONFIRMED THAT THIS EVENING.

TO THE EXISTING EXEMPTED AREA.

I'M NOT INTENDING TO ADD ADD PARKING OR TAKE IT AWAY.

I CAN'T ADD REAL ESTATE DOWNTOWN OR TAKE THAT AWAY EITHER.

THIS IS PURELY A PERMITTING PROBLEM.

IT IS STANDARD PRACTICE WHEN MULTIPLE PROPERTIES HAVE THE SAME LAND USE ISSUE THAT YOU GO AND MAKE A TEXT CEMENT AMENDMENT RATHER THAN DOING INDIVIDUAL CHANGES.

AND SO IN MY BEST ETHICAL PLANNING PRACTICE TO FIX A PROBLEM, UM, THAT HAS EXISTED FOR SOME TIME, UH, THIS IS A, A PROPOSED SOLUTION TO A PERMITTING PROBLEM, RIGHT? YES.

SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS TO EXEMPT OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ADDING APPROXIMATELY, MAYBE SLIGHTLY MORE AREA MORE THAN 50%

[01:10:01]

IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE, THE PINKER RED, IF YOU WILL, ON THIS MAP, THAT'S THE PROPOSED EXEMPTED AREA.

SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, IS WHY NOW AT THE LAST MEETING, ATTORNEY DAVIS INDICATED THAT HE HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE FOR A FEW YEARS.

APPARENTLY HIS CONCERNS FELL ON DEAF EARS BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS BOARD OF WHICH WE HAVE SOME SITTING MEMBERS SITTING TONIGHT, CHOSE NOT TO TAKE ACTION ON IT KNOWING THAT THE CITY HAD MADE MISTAKES IN THE PAST AND THAT THERE WERE POTENTIAL LEGAL CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF THAT.

AND THE PREVIOUS BOARD DID NOTHING, SIR.

AND I, IF, IF, IF I SAID BOARD, I MISSPOKE AND I APOLOGIZE.

I, I WENT TO STAFF DIRECTLY WITH MY CONCERNS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

I DID NOT COME TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.

THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TWO AREAS.

UM, I DON'T THINK I MISINTERPRETED WHAT YOU SAID.

UM, WELL, I'LL SPEAK AS A MEMBER OF THOSE BOARDS THAT I DON'T RECALL THIS BEING BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AS A PROBLEM.

AND, AND I MAY WELL HAVE MISSPOKE, BUT I, I CLEARLY WOULD'VE GONE TO STAFF AND CITY MANAGER FIRST.

I WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO THE BOARD OF ALTMAN FIRST WITH, WITH THOSE ISSUES.

WELL, UH, UH, OKAY, THEN THAT RAISES A CONCERN AS TO, WELL THEN WHY DIDN'T STAFF ELEVATE THIS SERIOUS ISSUE TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN? OR DID THEY, AND IT FELL ON DEAF EARS.

WELL, THIS STAFF WOMAN SITTING RIGHT HERE TOOK IT UP THE MINUTE I MENTIONED TO HER.

I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I SAID TO MS. RU THAT I APPRECIATE WHAT SHE'S DOING.

KEEP DOING IT.

PLEASE.

MY CRITICISM IS MORE TOWARDS THIS BOARD, THE PREVIOUS BOARD'S ACTION OR LACK THEREOF.

SO BECAUSE OF INACTION BY STAFF OR BY PREVIOUS BOARD, THIS BOARD IS NOW FACING THIS ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING BEING KICKED, YOU KNOW, KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT WE TAKE A PAUSE, GIVE THOSE BOARD MEMBERS THIS BOARD THAT MAYBE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH DETAILED INFORMATION AS THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE BEFORE MAKING THE VOTE.

GIVE US THOSE MEMBERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.

NOW, IF YOU GET INTO THE BASIS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES, ONE OF THE, THE BASIS IS EQUITABLE TREATMENT WITHIN THE CENTRAL RETAIL CORE.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES EQUITABLE TREATMENT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

I HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT THAT.

ALL AT ALL.

WHERE I HAVE A CONCERN IS THE BREADTH OF THE PROPOSAL, AND THAT IS THE ENTIRE AREA OUTLINED IN REST.

ANOTHER BASIS OF THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT ITS PURPOSE IS TO TREAT SIMILAR BUILDINGS THE SAME WAY.

THOSE BUILDINGS THAT GO FROM, AS ATTORNEY DAVIS POINTED OUT AT THE LAST MEETING IN THE EXISTING AREA, THE YELLOW AREA THAT IS EXEMPTED, YOU HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS THAT GO LOT LINE TO LOT LINE.

SO OFF STREET PARKING IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNLESS YOU START TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS, WHICH IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN, UH, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE H B C WOULD EVER APPROVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE NATURE OF THE AREA IN THE YELLOW AND COMPARE IT TO THE AREA IN OUTLINED IN RED, MS. RU HAS ARGUED, AGAIN AS PART OF HER RECOMMENDATION,

[01:15:01]

I DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE YELLOW AREA VERSUS THE RED AREA, AND YOU TAKE ATTORNEY DAVIS' COMMENTS THAT IN THE YELLOW AREA YOU HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTIES WHERE THE BUILDINGS RUN LOT LINE TO LOT LINE.

AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE AREA IN RED, YOU HAVE VERY FEW PROPERTIES WHERE THE BUILDINGS RUN LOT LINE TO LOT LINE.

SO THEY'RE NOT SIMILAR IN CHARACTER.

AND IF THEY'RE NOT SIMILAR IN CHARACTER, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE USED.

THAT ARGUMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A PREMISE FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

IT BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS A LITTLE CLOSER AND MAYBE LOOKING AT REDRAWING THE BOUNDARY WHERE IT MAKES MORE SENSE.

I HAD VENTURE TO SAY THAT IN THE, THE RED AREA, YOU'VE GOT 80 TO 90% OF THE PROPOSED AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE SIMILAR TYPE OF BUILDINGS THAT YOU FIND IN THE YELLOW AREA.

IN FACT, THE, THE ONLY PART OF THE RED OUTLINED AREA, AND THAT IS ON CRAVEN STREET.

SO YOU HAVE ONE BLOCK ON THE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF CRAVEN STREET, BETWEEN P*****K AND SOUTH FRONT.

THAT'S THE ONLY AREA OF THE PROPOSED AREA THAT IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU FIND IN THE EXISTING EXEMPTED AREA.

THE REST OF THE PROPOSED AREA IS QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THE YELLOW AREA.

ANOTHER BASIS FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT IT, IT PROVIDES RELIEF FROM EXISTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS INTENDED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCE.

WE ALREADY HAVE A MECHANISM TO ADDRESS THIS.

THAT MECHANISM IS FLEXIBILITY THAT STAFF HAS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS TO MODIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ALL STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, 'CAUSE I MAY BE ON THIS, THAT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, LAND USE ORDINANCE, WHERE THERE ARE A FEW PAGES OF WHAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF A PROPOSED BUSINESS, THAT THAT IS A GUIDE.

THOSE ARE NOT HARD AND FAST NUMBERS.

IS THAT CORRECT? I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

OFFERS STAFF SOME FLEXIBILITY.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS AND THE FLEXIBILITY.

UM, I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IN COURT WITH A, WITH A 10% VARIANCE IF, IF WE HAD GOOD FACTS TO SUPPORT WHY STAFF UNILATERALLY VARIED FROM A STANDARD MAYBE WITHIN 10%, BUT BEYOND THAT, IT'S GONNA LACK ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD AND PROBABLY VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW.

NO, I, I FULLY AGREE WITH THAT, THAT WHEN YOU START USING OR START HAVING THE ABILITY TO USE DISCRETION, WELL, DISCRETION HAS TO HAVE A BASIS.

AND, AND THAT'S I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO I I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I THINK THE BOARD JUST NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARKING, AND I HATE TO SAY PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIREMENTS, IT'S A GUIDE AND STAFF HAS SOME ABILITY TO MODIFY THOSE STANDARDS.

CAN, CAN I HAVE A QUESTION? I GOT A QUESTION.

WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF SOMEONE GOES TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND SAYS, I HAVE THIS PARCEL AND I WANNA DO THIS WITH IT, THAT THE NUMBER STAFF GIVES 'EM IS A GUIDELINE.

IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY? IT'S WHAT IS INCLUDED IN OUR LAND USE ORDINANCE.

HOWEVER, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, STAFF DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MODIFY THAT.

IF IT'S GOT A GOOD BASIS FOR DOING THAT.

THERE HAVE TO BE STAFF.

THERE IS A STRANGE LINE INCLUDED IN THE TEXT OF THAT ORDINANCE THAT

[01:20:01]

UM, ONE AREA WHERE I KNOW THIS WAS USED WAS IN THE D R C REVIEW OF THE ITALIAN POLICE DOWN HERE.

THEY WERE CLOSE TO THE PARKING DIDN'T HAVE EVERY SINGLE ONE.

IN FACT, I WROTE A MEMO UP TODAY AND UH, UM, THIS WAS USED THERE.

THEY WERE SHORT, SOMETHING LIKE TWO, UH, MATT AND SETH GOT TOGETHER.

THEY LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, IN THIS CASE AND THIS AREA AND THE REUSE OF THIS BUILDING, THIS IS OKAY.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH SCOTT.

WHEN WE WRITE A NEW ORDINANCE, THERE WILL BE ABSOLUTELY NO FLEXIBILITY INCLUDED UNLESS THAT FLEXIBILITY GIVEN TO STAFF IS CLEARLY DEFINED.

IT'S DEBATABLY ILLEGAL.

SO, SO YES TO SOME DISCRETION DEVICE I'VE GIVEN FOR 30 YEARS IS DON'T VARY MORE THAN 10%.

AND, AND, AND, AND MAKE SURE THE RECORD'S CLEAR WHY THAT VARIANCE OF 10% WAS ALLOWED.

THE BEST EXAMPLE WOULD THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH IS THE SHERATON HOTEL, MARINA AND RESTAURANT.

THREE COMMON USES ON ONE CAMPUS.

THOSE THREE USES AREN'T ATTRACTING ALL DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

MANY THAT ONE PERSON, ONE CAR IS GONNA GO TO THE RESTAURANT OR USE THE HOTEL OR USE THE MARINA.

SO THOSE COMBINATION USES IS WHERE YOU CAN LOGICALLY SAY, HEY, IF, IF THE RULE IS REQUIRES 300 SPACES, WE MIGHT GO 2 75 RECOGNIZING THAT ALL THOSE CUSTOMERS ARE LARGELY THE SAME PERSON.

BUT, SO IT'S, IT'S NOT A GREAT TOOL, BUT YES, IT CAN PROVIDE SOME SLIGHT HELP.

AND , YOU GONNA ALLOW US TO KIND OF REBUT SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS AS YOU GO? OR YOU WANT US TO HOLD IT TO THE END? I, I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

BOB.

WOULD CAN, CAN WE INTERJECT WHILE YOU GO ALONG OR DID YOU WANT TO GO? OH, PLEASE DO.

PLEASE DO.

UM, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE AREAS OF IN YELLOW AND THOSE THAT ARE PROPOSED AND EXPANDING, I CAN KIND OF SEE YOUR POINT, BUT I THINK YOU SKIPPED OVER, UH, WHAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND WHAT MS. ROO STATED WAS THEY ALSO WANTED TO LOCK IN THE PARKING IN THAT AREA BY EXPANDING THIS ZONE.

SO ALL OF THE BLUE AREAS THAT ARE PUBLIC PARKING WOULD BE LOCKED IN ALL OF THE MAGENTA AREAS, WHICH IS CURRENTLY PRIVATE PARKING WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE, UH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AND SO THAT WAS A SECONDARY OR SECOND CONSIDERATION IF I'M SPEAKING THIS RIGHT, IN DRAWING THE BOUNDARIES WHERE THEY WERE NOT NECESSARILY THAT THE TWO WERE EXACTLY SIMILAR.

THE OTHER POINT THAT I, I THINK THAT, UH, MS. RU BROUGHT UP IN THE EMAIL THAT YOU'VE SKIPPED OVER AS WELL, IS THIS ENTIRE AREA IS ZONE C THREE OR C TWO, WHICH ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL, UH, HOMES TO BE THERE, BUT PRIMARILY IT'S FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

SO THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS I WANTED TO BRING UP ON YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT.

YOU'RE CORRECT, I, AND I RAISED A CONCERN, UM, WITH JESSICA WITH RE REGARDS TO THE CONVENTION CENTER, WHICH HAS TWO PARKING LOTS AND 75 76 PARKING SPACES.

YOU'RE NOT LOCKING IN ANY OF THAT PARKING.

AND THEN BECAUSE THE, THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S PROPOSED, YOU'RE HANDING OFF A FINAL DECISION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHO CAN MODIFY THAT, THOSE PARKING SPACES, IF THEY CAN BEAT THE, THE APPROPRIATE, IF AN APPLICANT CAN MEET THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS.

SO YOU'RE NOT BY ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE, YOU'RE NOT LOCKING IN THOSE SPACES.

THEY CAN BE CHANGED LATER BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF THEY DEEM IT.

I UNDERSTAND, BUT ALDERMAN CAN ALSO SPEAK AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS WELL, SO, YEAH.

AND LET ME, THAT'S, LET ME JUMP INTO THOSE COMMENTS.

UM, 'CAUSE ALDERMAN PRILL MADE A, MADE A A A A GOOD POINT AT THE LAST MEETING.

UM, AS YOU DELIBERATE THROUGH THIS, I WOULD OPERATE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, IF APPLIED FOR, WILL BE GRANTED.

I WOULD OPERATE UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION, OR, OR THIS COULD BE ADOPTED WITHOUT, WITHOUT THAT TERMINOLOGY TO WHERE THAT BECOMES A MOOT POINT.

BASE, INCREASE THE M S V REVENUES SO THAT A PARKING DEBT COULD BE FUNDED WITH THAT EXTRA SPACE.

YOU STRIKE THE S U P PROCESS.

UM, AND I, AND I THINK JESS HAD SOME, SOME GREAT COMMENTS ABOUT THIS.

IT, IT, IT IS A TOOL THAT, UM, CAN MAKE PROPERTY OWNERS MORE COMFORTABLE.

UM, IF YOU LEFT IT IN THERE, I WOULD, I WOULD PRESUME IT GETS USED, UH, FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE, NOT PARKING.

BUT AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, I WOULD ALSO REFLECT ON THE PUBLIC POLICY THAT THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU AS A BOARD WANT TO INCREASE THE TAX

[01:25:01]

SO IF I WERE THINKING ABOUT THAT SPECIAL USED PERMIT OFF RAMP, I WOULD BE THINKING ABOUT IT THAT IT'S GONNA BE USED AND ARE YOU GONNA BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THE NEED FOR A PARKING DECK THAT MAY LIKELY BE NEEDED AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE TO BE FUNDED FROM THAT TAX BASE? WELL, AND, AND, AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF THE BOARD DOES APPROVE, UM, THE PROPOSED AREA, THAT THAT MAY BECOME A REALITY MUCH SOONER THAN ANYBODY THINKS.

AND, AND I THINK THAT'S THE THING TO THINK ABOUT.

DO YOU WANT THE OFF-RAMP OR NOT? 'CAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTY IN THE RED AREA THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL WITH BUILDINGS THAT GO FROM LOT LINE TO LOT LINE NO OFF STREET PARKING.

AND THEN WHAT DO YOU DO? BECAUSE IF YOU, IF YOU, YOU LOOK AT THAT RED AREA, ESPECIALLY, UM, THE TWO BLOCKS THAT ARE ON THE KIND OF THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THERE'S NOT MUCH ON STREET PARKING IN THAT WHOLE AREA.

THERE'S VERY LITTLE ON STREET PARKING.

SO IF YOU START SEEING SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES, RESIDENTIAL OR, UM, BUSINESS PROPERTIES BEING ACQUIRED AND BUILDINGS GOING UP FROM LOT LINE TO LOT LINE, WHERE IS PARKING GONNA HAPPEN? ARE WE SETTING OURSELVES UP TO BE FORCED TO HAVE TO BUILD A PARKING DECK SOMEWHERE AND TO THE MAYOR? LEMME STATE THE OFFICE.

JUST TO THE MAYOR'S POINT TOO, THIS CAN BE ADOPTED WITHOUT THAT.

AND BY IMPLICATION IT COULD ALSO BE ADOPTED WITHOUT AN ADDED BACK.

AT SOME FUTURE POINT, IF SOMEONE PROPOSED A PROJECT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF COULD GENERATE A GREAT DEAL OF REVENUE, THE BOARD COULD ALWAYS ADD THAT S U P PROCESS LATER AS A MEANS TO ALLOW THAT PARKING AND GENERATE AND INCREASE THE TAX BASE.

WELL, LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION YOU HAVE, SO IT JUST, IF WE TAKE OUT THE, UM, SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROVISION, THEN WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE PARKING LOT BEHIND MORGAN'S .

YOU KNOW, WITH ALL OF, WITH, WITH ALL OF THE PARKING ISSUES AND OWNER ISSUES IN THAT ENTIRE LOT, THE BOARD OR EVEN THE NEWLY DEVELOPED M S D ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ON THAT ISSUE IF WE DID NOT HAVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

SO, UM, THAT, THAT AREA IS ALREADY EXEMPT.

SO THOSE BUILDINGS, OKAY, SO, SO YEAH.

ANOTHER PREMISE OF THE PROPOSAL IS THAT WE ARE, WOULD BE EXEMPTING A LARGER AREA FROM RESTRAINTS OF OUR SATELLITE PARKING OBJECT.

AND JESSICA OUTLINED, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE, THE NATURE OF THAT SATELLITE PARKING OPTION IS.

AND I, AND I THINK MS. RUE PRETTY MUCH STATED THAT IT'S INEFFECTIVE AS IT STANDS IN THIS AREA.

IT, IT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE IN, IN A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF CASES, BUT FOR THE MOST PART IT, IT'S NOT USEFUL.

SO WHY AREN'T WE FOCUSING ON DOING SOMETHING WITH THAT TO MAKE IT MORE FUNCTIONAL AS OPPOSED TO JUST LEAVING IT AS IS? YES, SIR.

THE, UM, AND, AND JESS IS RIGHT, I'VE, UM, AND ALL OF NEWBURN, I THINK I'VE APPROVED TWO SATELLITE PARKING AREAS IN 30 YEARS.

UM, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE IS, UM, THERE'S NOWHERE TO GO.

I MEAN, IT'S 600 FEET NOW.

IF YOU MADE IT 12, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT LONG ENOUGH TO DO ANY GOOD TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

WELL, I MEAN, AN OPTION MIGHT BE TO ALLOW AN APPLICANT TO LEASE PARKING SPACES IN ONE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOTS SOMEWHERE WITHIN A THREE OR FOUR BLOCK AREA.

IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE BECAUSE PEOPLE REALISTICALLY ARE NOT GONNA PARK THREE BLOCKS OVER HERE TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, DOWN HERE.

AND WE'RE NOT USING AN ARBITRARY NUMBER LIKE 600 FEET AS A LIBERTY.

UM, BUT WE'RE PROVIDING A MEANS FOR A BUSINESS TO GET AROUND THE OFF STREET PARKING BY DOING THAT.

[01:30:01]

THE, THE LEGAL PROBLEM WE HAVE IS, IS WE CAN'T ALLOCATE THOSE PARKING SPACES TO A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL FOR 30 YEARS TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

SO IF WE WERE TO LEASE, UM, THOSE PARKING SPACES TO SOMEBODY WHO WANTED TO BUILD A CONDOMINIUM, LET'S SAY, AND HAVE THOSE PARKING SPACES FOR ITS RESIDENCE, WE'VE NOW GIVEN A PRIVATE EMOLLIENT TO A DEVELOPER TO SAY, HEY, TAKE THIS PUBLIC PROPERTY AND USE IT FOR YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN BUILD THESE CONDOS AND NO ONE ELSE CAN USE 'EM FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.

AND THEN YOU GET TO THE, THE, THE MORE PRACTICAL PROBLEM OF THE LAW ASIDE OF WHO GETS TO PICK THE WINNERS AND LOSERS FOR WHO GETS THOSE FACES TO DO THEIR PROJECTS.

AND I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT, UH, AND I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT BY EXEMPTING THIS PROPOSED AREA, WE MIGHT SEE THAT SITUATION COME UP RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE A DEVELOPER COMING IN, BUYING OUT SOME LOTS, PUTTING UP CONDOMINIUMS, LOT LINE TO LOT LINE NO OFF STREET PARKING BECAUSE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO SO BECAUSE WE SAID THAT WE, WE'VE CREATED THAT, THAT EXPANDED AREA THAT FORGIVES THEM.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEY HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY THEN TO FIND PARKING ELSEWHERE.

AND JUST SO WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT WE'RE KEEPING THE S U P LANGUAGE AND THE S U P IS GRANTED TO ELIMINATE ALL PARKING WHATSOEVER SO THAT YOU CAN GO LOT LINE WITH THE LOT LINE.

'CAUSE THERE'S NO DEMOLISHING IN HISTORIC STRUCTURE.

SO THERE'S NO OPTION WHERE SOMEONE BUYS A, A HISTORIC BUILDING IN THIS AREA AND TEARS IT DOWN AND BUILDS A NEW CONDOMINIUM.

WELL, ONE OF THE BASIS OF THIS PROPOSAL IS WE ARE PROTECTING HISTORIC BUILDINGS.

WELL, THE REALITY IS THEY'RE PRETTY WELL PROTECTED BECAUSE H P C HAS TO GIVE APPROVAL BEFORE ANY DEMOLITION CAN HAPPEN IN, IN ANY OF THE AREA, THE PROPOSED AREA.

H P C IS GONNA BE INVOLVED.

AND IF I UNDERSTAND THE H P C GUIDELINES, JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS LOOKING TO CREATE PARKING SPACES, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE JUSTIFICATION TO GET AN APPROVAL FROM THE H P C.

SO THE REALITY IS THESE BUILDINGS AREN'T GONNA GO AWAY.

WAY THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

I I THINK STAFF WASN'T MEANING LITERALLY PRESERVE THEM.

I THINK STAFF WAS MEANING BY MAINTAINING THE PARKING ON SITE THAT EXISTS, THESE STRUCTURES REMAIN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE SO THAT THE OWNERS CAN CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THEM.

WHEREAS IF THEY CHANGE A USE AND THAT NEW USE CAN'T BE ACCOMMODATED WITH THE PARKING, THE BUILDING'S GONNA SEND EMPTY AND NOT HAVE ANY ECCO ECONOMIC VALUE.

I, I THINK THAT'S WHERE STAFF WAS GOING.

I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, NOR DOES ANY, ANY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE STAFF EXPLAIN THAT TO US.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH INFORMATION, BUT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DECISION WITH REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW BETTER TO EXPLAIN IT THAT I DON'T LIKE BEING PUT IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION AND NOT HAVE THE DETAILED INFORMATION THAT I THINK WE NEED AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO MAKE AN EDUCATED AND A SMART DECISION.

SO THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED AREA, THE AREA IN RED, AND LET ME, LET ME GO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT MAP, THE AREA ALONG SOUTH FRONT STREET.

ONE OF THE BASIS OF THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT AGAIN, WE, WE ARE LOOKING TO PRESERVE HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN THIS PROPOSED AREA.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT BOTTOM PIECE ON SOUTH FRONT STREET, THERE'S ONE HISTORIC BUILDING IN THAT WHOLE AREA.

THAT'S THE HARVEY MAN.

NONE OF THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, ARE CONSIDERED HISTORIC PROPERTIES.

SO I I WOULD LIKE TO INTERJECT, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I I HATE THAT.

AND MY STAFF REPORT IS BEING CLASSIFIED AS ARGUMENTS.

THEY WERE SIMPLY, UM, POINTS TO, TO CONVEY WHY THIS WAS IMPORTANT.

IF I USE THE TERM HISTORIC BUILDINGS, UM, I I REALLY REGRET THAT RIGHT NOW WHILE WE'RE WORDSMITHING, I MEANT HISTORIC DOWNTOWN NEW BERN AND ENCOURAGING THE REUSE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS BECAUSE THE BOTTOM LINE OF THIS IS WHETHER THE BUILDINGS ARE EXACTLY ALIKE OR NOT, UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE TO DENY ALMOST EVERY SINGLE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ANYTHING IN THAT AREA, THE

[01:35:01]

WE SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF TIME EVALUATING THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT.

AND, UM, I, I DEFINITELY HEAR ALL OF THESE CONCERNS.

I JUST NEED REALLY SPECIFIC FEEDBACK.

MY DOOR IS ALWAYS OPEN AND I ALWAYS ANSWER MY PHONE AND I AM ALWAYS, I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW, HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE, THESE ISSUES.

AND I, I I FEEL LIKE PERHAPS I, UM, THAT I, THAT IT APPEARS THAT I'M PUSHING A SOLUTION AND I, I, THIS ACTUALLY IS A TEXT AMENDMENT, UM, IN MY 22 YEARS OF DOING THIS, I'VE SPENT LONGER ON THAT THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

WELCOME, MR. DUBIN.

SCOTT, BACK TO YOU.

UM, PRETTY MUCH FROM WHAT STAFF HAVE FOUND AND CORRECTED AND TRIED TO BRING TOGETHER, UH, EVERYTHING, PRETTY MUCH IS IT ALL IN PLACE BY STATUTE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TRY TO MESS IT UP BY MAKING A DECISION ON SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, ALREADY BEEN LOOKED AT AND CHECKED AND RECHECKED, THAT THE ORDINANCE IS, UM, UP TO SPEED TO PASS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND WORRY ABOUT, WELL, WE ARE LOOKING AT A LAWSUIT, WE OVERSTEPPED OUR BOUNDARIES HERE AND THIS IS WHERE I WANT TO STAY AT AND CHECK.

WELL, UM, I, I THINK YOUR, YOUR ISSUE IS, IS REALLY YOUR, YOUR TWO VARIABLES ARE YOUR SPECIAL USE PERMIT OFF RAMP OR NOT.

AND THERE ARE PROS AND CONS TO THAT.

AND THEN WHERE YOU DRAW THESE LINES MM-HMM.

, THOSE ARE REALLY THE TWO VARIABLES.

AND, AND WE, WE STAFF NEED SOME HELP ON THAT.

UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT TOO, AND AND I, I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE THOUGHT THAT'S GOING INTO THIS.

HAD I NOT RAISED THIS ISSUE, NO ONE WOULD'VE HAD THE SLIGHTEST IDEA THAT THERE WAS A CRISIS.

AND IF WE WENT 20 MORE YEARS AND THE SAME THING KEPT HAPPENING, AND I, AND I'M USING SIX, THERE MIGHT BE EIGHT OR 10 I, I SIX COME TO MIND INSTANTLY.

IF I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I MIGHT COME UP WITH 10 OR 12, BUT, BUT IF IN 10 MORE YEARS THERE WAS 20 OR 30, 30 IN CONTEXT, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE SITTING HERE WITH A PARKING CRISIS.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD HAVE ANY IDEA THAT SOMETHING WASN'T RIGHT.

IT'S, IT'S THE RULE GEEKS LIKE US THAT KNOW SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT.

IF MY LAW OFFICE BECAME A FLORIST, AND I DON'T KNOW, I MIGHT HAVE SEVEN OR EIGHT PARKING SPACES, AND IF A FLORIST REQUIRES 12, I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD WOULD BE CRYING.

THERE'S A CRISIS THAT MY LAW OFFICE BUILDING IS NOW A FULL FLORIST AND IT'S CREATED PARKING PROBLEMS. PEOPLE WILL STILL PARK IN THE BACK AND USE THE SPACES THAT ARE THERE TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE THERE.

UM, SO TO OTTERMAN P'S POINT, THOUGH, I THINK THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS WHAT DOES PUT A TWIST ON THIS AND CAN CREATE A SITUATION WHERE YOU MIGHT BE BITING OFF MORE THAN YOU CAN CHEW MM-HMM.

, WHERE YOU MIGHT START LOSING A GREAT DEAL OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE LOCKED IN.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE TRICKY PIECE OF THIS IN MY MIND.

SO HOW DO WE CORRECT THAT TOPIC? WELL, YOU, YOU, YOU, UM, AS THE BOARD DELIBERATES ON WHAT TO DO, I, I THINK QUESTION ONE IS DO YOU WANT A A SPECIAL USE PERMIT COMPONENT TO IT OR NOT? IF YOU LEAVE IT IN AS DRAFTED, IT, IT PRESENTS A VARIABLE THAT ALDERMAN PRILL IS POINTING OUT THAT YOU'RE GONNA LOSE CONTROL OF.

AND THAT'S WHY I SAY TO YOU, IF YOU LEAVE THAT IN THERE, PRESUME THAT YOU'LL LOSE THAT PARKING, PRESUME IT MM-HMM.

TO BE SAFE AND CONSERVATIVE.

UM, SO THAT'S A POINT THAT I, THAT I WOULD THINK ABOUT.

UM, AND THEN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE SHOULD THESE LINES BE OR NOT BE? UM, I CAN TELL YOU, GROWING UP ON P*****K STREET, UM, THE HOUSE USED TO BE CALLED THE HENDERSON HOUSE THAT SITS TO THE RIGHT OF THE HANNAH HOUSE THAT WAS A RESTAURANT MM-HMM.

FOR DECADES.

UM, AND THEN IT BECAME SINGLE FAMILY.

AND I'M QUITE CERTAIN THAT THEY COULD NOT, IF THEY WANTED TO RETURN BACK TO A RESTAURANT, THEY COULDN'T MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR A RESTAURANT ON THAT SITE.

I, I HAVE A QUESTION.

UM, I HEARD, HEARD YOU SAY WHY THE CONVENTION CENTER

[01:40:01]

WAS INCLUDED.

WHY WAS THE DOUBLE TREE IN SKY SALE NOT INCLUDED ANY IDEAS? THOSE WERE BOTH, UM, NOT PUBLICLY OWNED.

AND I THINK THAT IT WAS THE, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, BACK TO THAT CONVERSATION, UM, IF THEY WERE TO REDEVELOP, WE DIDN'T WANT TO EXEMPT THEM FROM HAVING TO MEET CURRENT PARKING ORDINANCES.

BINGO.

A LOT OF TIME WAS SPENT, UM, GETTING ALL THAT PARKING STRAIGHT FOR THOSE USES.

AND THOSE USES HAVE THE LEGAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HIGHEST DENSITY USES.

SO THERE WAS NO NEED TO GO THAT.

SO WHAT ABOUT NORTH OF BROAD STREET, THE WHOLE BLOCK THAT'S PUBLICLY OWNED, WHY WAS THAT NOT INCLUDED? THAT WAS JUST, UH, IN THE CONVERSATION OF THAT AND THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST POTENTIALLY READY FOR REDEVELOPMENT.

AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE ABILITY TO REDEVELOPMENT AND NOT REDEVELOP NEW HIGH INTENSITY USES WITHOUT MEETING PARKING AND EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM IF IT EXISTS.

SO LET ME UNDERSTAND, HYPOTHETICALLY, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH THE SHRINER PROPERTY, RIGHT? THAT'S GOTTA GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE PROCESS, RIGHT? MM-HMM.

SO WITH IT BEING EXCLUDED FROM THIS BOUNDARY, IF HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE COUNTY DECIDED THAT WAS NO LONGER A GOOD PURPOSE FOR THEM AND THEY SOLD IT AND THEY PUT CONDOS THERE, THAT MEANS THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.

AND, AND THAT WAS THE POLICY THINKING BEHIND THIS TO OTTMAN PRILLS POINT IS YOU START EXEMPTING OPEN TRACKS OF LAND TO NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT IS GOING TO ENCOURAGE THE HIGHEST, MOST DENSE USE AND PUSH THE PARKING PROBLEM BACK ON THE GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE.

AND THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE A PARKING DECK, OR IT'S GONNA REQUIRE INFIL, IT'S GONNA HAVE INFILTRATION INTO RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE.

SO ALL OF THAT GREEN SPACE AND ALL OF THOSE MORE OPEN TRACKS WERE EXCLUDED FROM THE EXEMPTION FOR JUST THAT REASON.

HAVE THOSE FOLKS PROVIDE THEIR OWN PARKING SOLUTIONS.

AND I THINK, I THINK THIS MAY BE MY LAST COMMENT, BUT I I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER, WHEN ALDERMAN PEREL BROUGHT UP THE CONDOMINIUM ARGUMENT ABOUT LEASING SPACES OFFSITE WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET, I THINK THE MARKET IS ALSO GONNA DICTATE, I DON'T THINK SOMEBODY'S GONNA BUY A CONDO IF THEY'RE PARKING IS GONNA BE 600 FEET AWAY.

SO NOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS YOU WOULD HYPOTHETICALLY TAKE THE PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET LEASE SPACES OUT THAT WOULD NEVER BE USED, WHICH TAKES AWAY FROM YOUR INVENTORY FOR POTENTIAL PARKING DOWNTOWN.

SO EVERYTHING IN THIS NEW HASH MARK AREA, IF IT'S REDEVELOPED AND TURNED IN FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO A DOCTOR'S OFFICE THAT REQUIRES FOUR PARKING SPACES, THAT INDIVIDUAL THAT'S MAKING THAT INVESTMENT IS GONNA HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION, HEY, I DON'T HAVE TO PUT PARKING HERE, BUT IF I DON'T, AM I GONNA BE ABLE TO SUPPLY MY CONSTITUENTS OR MY CUSTOMERS? SO THAT ALSO IS GONNA COME INTO PLAY AND PROBABLY WEEDED OUT SOME OF THOSE ENTITIES THAT WOULD LOOK TO REDEVELOP.

JUST ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER COMMENT ON THE, UH, THE CONVENTION CENTER, I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE FOR IDENTIFYING PARKING LOTS THAT ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CITY CONVENTION CENTER IS NOT OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CITY, THAT'S COUNTY FACILITIES.

AND YET IT'S INDICATED THAT THOSE ARE AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, FREE PARKING, UM, AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ANYBODY EXCEPT THAT AT ANY GIVEN TIME, THE COUNTY WILL CLOSE THOSE OFF IF THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING GOING ON AT THE CONVENTION CENTER.

SO ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS WE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDING THE 75 OR 76 SPACES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER THOSE MINOR POINT, BUT SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER, UM, MOVING ON, AND, UM, JESSICA SCOTT, MAYBE YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED.

SO THEY HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPOSED AREA ON THE THEORY THAT DON'T WE HAVE A PROBLEM THOUGH, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THIS IS WHERE I MAY BE WRONG, IS THAT IN THE YELLOW AREA, SHORT-TERM RENTALS DON'T HAVE TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

IS THAT ACCURATE IN THE YELLOW AREA? HM.

BOY,

[01:45:01]

AND IF THAT'S ACCURATE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, IS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE YELLOW AREA WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS NOT HAVING TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND IN THE RED AREA, WE'RE GONNA HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT HAVE TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO BY ADOPTING THIS, WE'RE CREATING ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT IS GONNA BE A LEGAL POTENTIAL LEGAL PROBLEM BECAUSE SOMEBODY GUARANTEED SOMEBODY WILL COME IN WITH A ME TOO ARGUMENT SAYING, YOU ALLOW THESE AIRBNBS TO GET AWAY WITH NOT HAVING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT YOU'RE IMPOSING THEM ON ME.

AND THAT'S GONNA FORCE THIS BOARD TO HAVE TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS.

AND IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA BE THE CASE, BECAUSE WHEN WE PROVIDE THIS ORDINANCE SIMPLY EXPANDS THE BOUNDARIES AND EX AND REQUIRES SHORT-TERM RENTALS TO HAVE PARKING.

SO TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYONE IS THERE, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE ARE ANY, THE THE ONE THAT I KNOW ABOUT HAS PARKING, UM, BUT, BUT ANYONE THAT'S THERE WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED AND ANY NEW SHORT-TERM RENTALS WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY IN THE YELLOW AREA.

BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE ARE ANY IN THERE.

THE ONES THAT I DO KNOW ABOUT HAVE, HAVE THEIR OWN DEDICATED PARKING.

WELL, I THINK THE REALITY IS THESE, THESE, THESE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ENTITIES JUST COME INTO THE PICTURE AND THE CITY DOES NOT ACTIVELY MONITOR THEM.

UH, SO I SUSPECT THAT THERE ARE QUITE A LARGE NUMBER, UH, OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE MAY BE CREATING A SITUATION WHERE ONE AREA ALLOWS A USE, ANOTHER AREA HAS THAT SAME USE WITH RESTRICTIONS, UH, IT'S GONNA CAUSE A PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD.

SO, SO JUST FOR CLARITY, THIS CHANGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED MEANS THAT ALL OF THIS NEW PROPOSED AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THE SAME THING WHEN IT COMES TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS? SAME THING FOR EVERYTHING.

SO THE PLEADING AND ZONING BOARD HAS HAD A COMPREHENSIVE CONVERSATION THERE ABOUT EMBARK UPON UPDATING 26 ENTIRE CHAPTERS OF A LAND USE ORDINANCE.

IT WILL BE TREATED AS ONE.

UH, THE NEXT ISSUES, UH, THAT I HAD HAS BEEN ADDRESSED THAT IS THAT THE PROPOSAL PRESERVES ALL STREET PARKING SPACES.

BUT AGAIN, IT, IT ONLY PRESERVES THEM TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE REGARDING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, SAYING NO TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BECAUSE AT LEAST AS ONLY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THEY ARE ACTING AS, AS ATTORNEY DAVIS POINTED OUT, THEY ARE ACTING AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY AND THERE ARE VERY STRICT STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET.

UM, SO, SO THERE'S A COMFORT LEVEL THERE.

BUT AGAIN, I I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE POTENTIAL LONG, LONG-TERM RAMIFICATIONS MIGHT BE FOR THE BOARD.

AND AS, AS ATTORNEY DAVIS POINTED OUT, I THINK THIS BOARD NEEDS TO ASSUME THAT DECISIONS WILL BE MADE THAT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT TO SEE MADE IN THE FUTURE.

UM, DURING THE PLANNING BOARD'S, UH, DELIBERATION, UM, I UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, I WAS NOT THERE.

UM, I, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ALSO HAD SUGGESTED POSSIBLY FORMING A PARKING SUBCOMMITTEE WITHIN THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND THEN INCLUDING, UM, STAFF MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

UH, THE PURPOSE OF THAT PARKING SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD BE TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC PARKING ISSUES, I BELIEVE CITYWIDE, NOT JUST IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, UM, BUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND YET THAT HASN'T BEEN REALLY PRESENTED AS A PART OF THIS WHOLE OPTION.

AND, AND, AND I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

UM, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S, IT'S A, WOULD BE A, A GOOD FUNCTION TO HAVE WITHIN THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

UM, AS ISSUES COME UP, THEY CAN ADDRESS IT, THEY CAN MAKE THIS BOARD AWARE OF THE ISSUES AND THEN TRY AGAIN, TRY TO IDENTIFY, UH, OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.

[01:50:05]

AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON ONE OF THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES, UH, BEING GEARED TOWARDS PARKING, BUT ALSO EVERY OTHER LAND USE ISSUE IN THOSE 26 CHAPTERS GENERALLY, AND I KNOW THE MAYOR'S HAD THIS EXPERIENCE AS WELL.

UM, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE TALENT POOL ACROSS THE CITY, UM, IS GREAT.

AND OFTENTIMES WHEN WE HAVE THESE MORE NARROW ISSUES, THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN WILL CREATE A, SOME KIND OF TEMPORARY COMMITTEE BY PULLING IN EXPERTS AROUND THE CITY FROM THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCIES.

UM, THAT CREATES A BETTER POOL OF EXPERIENCE ON THOSE ISSUES THAN WE MIGHT HAVE.

AND THAT IS NOT TO SLIGHT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IN ANY WAY, UM, BUT I SUSPECT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF PARKING EXPERTS ON THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT ACROSS THE CITY, UM, WE'VE, IT'S BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE A GREAT MANY PEOPLE WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN PARKING.

I THINK THE PARKING EXPERTS WOULD PROBABLY TELL US THINGS THAT WE MAY NOT WANT TO HEAR AS WELL.

THAT'S ALWAYS WHAT THEY DO WHEN WE HIRE THEM.

JUST BECAUSE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN IS TREATED ONE WAY DOESN'T CONCERN ME THAT, UM, THE NEW, NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UM, WOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENT AND CREATE ANY ILLEGAL ISSUES.

ANOTHER AREA OF CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT, I MEAN, THIS FOCUS IS OBVIOUSLY IN THE, IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS COMMUNITY, BUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF IT, UM, IMPACT THE ENTIRE CITY.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO PROVIDE EXEMPTION OF PARKING ON OFF STREET PARKING, YOU KNOW, IN THE, IN THE BUSINESS CORNER.

AND YET IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY, I, I, I MEAN, LEMME STEP OUT.

THE PROPOSAL FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY, ENCOURAGE FUTURE GROWTH BY EXEMPTING THE OFF STREET PARKING.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE PARKING STANDARDS ARE ACTUALLY CHASING BUSINESSES AWAY.

THE APPLICATION OF THE PARKING STANDARDS ARE POTENTIALLY CHASING BUSINESSES AWAY.

ARE WE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SOMEBODY, PROPERTY OWNERS TO BASICALLY SAY, I WANT WHAT'S HAPPENING.

I WANT WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING DOWNTOWN.

I WANT THAT SAME APPLICATION.

I WANT THE EQUITABLE TREATMENT UNDER THE ZONING IN MY NON-LEGAL MIND.

I THINK WE ARE, I THINK WE'RE CREATING A POTENTIAL LEGAL PROBLEM FOR OURSELVES.

DON'T KNOW, SCOTT, WHETHER YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT.

THIS FOR SURE THERE ARE, THERE ARE CORRIDORS, UM, I WILL USE MAIN STREET AND DUFFY FIELD AS AN EXAMPLE.

THAT IS A HISTORIC COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR THAT IS MUCH LIKE DOWNTOWN NEWBURN.

THE DIFFERENCE IS IT HAS NOT BEEN REVITALIZED YET.

SO I COULD CERTAINLY SEE AND HOPE THE DAY WILL COME WHERE REVENT COMMISSION AND STAFF WOULD COME BACK TO US AND, AND POINT OUT ANOTHER HISTORIC DISTRICT WHERE YOU'VE GOT BUILDINGS LOT LINE TO LOT LINE THAT CAN'T COMPLY WITH PARKING.

THE DIFFERENCE IS NO ONE'S EVER ASKED ON THOSE IN THAT CORRIDOR BECAUSE THERE IS NO NEW BUSINESS THERE.

BUT THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION WHERE YOU WOULD WANT TO ACCOMMODATE A SITUATION WITH THE SAME FACTS.

IF A BIG BOX STORE CAME TO US AND WON A DIFFERENT TREATMENT, THAT'S AN IN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUE ALTOGETHER.

UM, AND THAT WOULDN'T CAUSE ME ANY CONCERN ABOUT MORE MODERN DEVELOPMENTS.

THOSE MODERN DEVELOPMENTS WERE BUILT UNDER THE CURRENT CODE AND THEY COMPLY.

NOW I KNOW JESS, UM, AS SHE'S GOING TO BE DIVING INTO THE NEW LAND USE ORDINANCE AND, AND NEW PROVISIONS.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST STARTED PRACTICING, WE WERE AT A POINT WHERE CITIES NEEDED MORE PARKING.

THE MORE ASPHALT THE BETTER, AND MALLS AND BIG BOXES WERE BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE CHRISTMAS DAY SHOPPING.

AND THEN OVER THE DECADES WE'VE COME TO REALIZE THAT THAT'S BAD FOR THE EN ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S A TERRIBLE WASTE.

IT'S A TERRIBLE FOR THE GOVERNMENT WASTE OF TAX BASE.

SO FOR ALL THESE REASONS, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED TO SEE IF THE PARKING METRICS IN A MORE MODERN ORDINANCE CAME BACK SLIGHTLY LESS THAN THEY CURRENTLY ARE.

SO THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED.

BUT

[01:55:01]

ALTMAN CREW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RELEVANT TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I'LL JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

SO WHEN WE DID THE ON STREET DINING DURING COVID, UM, WHEN I WAS THE ALDERMAN FOR WARD SIX, I HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF BUSINESSES THERE AND THEY SAID, WELL, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE OUTSIDE DINING.

AND WE TOLD 'EM, FINE, YOU CAN, BUT DOWNTOWN RESTAURANTS WERE THE ONLY ONES WHERE WHEN YOU WALK OUTSIDE, YOU'RE IMMEDIATELY ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.

SO THOSE RESTAURANTS WERE ABLE TO HAVE DINING IN THEIR PARKING LOTS BECAUSE IT WAS PRIVATELY OWNED, OWNED.

AND I THINK, I THINK MOST PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT'S ONE OF THE UNIQUE ASPECTS OF BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN VERSUS, YOU KNOW, AN AWARD SIX WHERE IT'S HIGHLY COMMERCIAL.

WELL, ONE EXAMPLE, UM, THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, AND THE, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I BRING THAT ISSUE UP IS UP ON TRUMP BOULEVARD, THE, UH, EASTERSEALS BUILDING, THERE WAS A BUSINESS THAT WANTED TO LOCATE, RELOCATE INTO, OR ACTUALLY LOCATE, UH, INTO THE EASTERSEALS BUILDING.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY CAME TO STAFF, AND STAFF TOLD THEM THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PROPOSED USE WAS A PHYSICAL THERAPY FACILITY THAT PEOPLE, THAT UNDER DOCTORS BASICALLY ORDERS OR PRESCRIPTIONS IF YOU WILL, THAT NEED UM, PHYSICAL THERAPY, THIS FACILITY WOULD BE AVAILABLE, UM, WITH THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT TO ADDRESS A PERSON'S PHYSICAL THERAPY NEEDS.

THEY WERE TOLD, AND JUST PLEASE TELL ME, CORRECT ME IF ANY OF THIS IS INCORRECT, THEY WERE TOLD BY STAFF, WELL YOU'RE, THAT WOULD BE A GYM AND A GYM REQUIRES X NUMBER OF PARKING AND THERE JUST AREN'T X NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE ON THAT PROPERTY.

BUT THE POINT IS, THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEMBERSHIP GYM AND A PHYSICAL THERAPY THAT IS ONLY UNDER BASICALLY DOCTOR'S ORDERS.

BUT STAFF DECISION WAS THAT NO, YOU'RE A GYM, YOU CAN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, SO YOU CAN'T LOCATE IN THAT BUILDING.

I DO BELIEVE THAT WAS THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE INTERIM PERSON WHO WAS DOING ZONING.

AND WHEN OUR NEW STAFF MEMBERS STARTED AND ASSUMED THEY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A, UM, PEOPLE TRYING TO OPEN THAT BUSINESS AND WERE ABLE TO CLASSIFY THEM AS SOME KIND OF, UH, WAS A GYM OR HYBRID THERAPY USE WHERE THEY WERE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING THEY NEEDED.

AND, AND PART OF THAT WAS BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE IS NOT REALLY CLEARLY AND DOESN'T HAVE DE DEFINITIONS OF ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

AND SO THERE WERE SOME LEVITY IN THEM DECIDING THAT THAT COULD BE USED WITH THAT PARKING.

BUT YES, ABSOLUTELY.

WE HAVE TO TURN PEOPLE DOWN ALL THE TIME BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET A CRITERIA OF OUR ORDINANCE AND PARKING IS OFTEN IT, WE, WE, WE FACE CRITICISM ON THE OTHER WAY, IF WE WERE TO BE TOO, UM, RELAXED ON IT AND THEN THERE WASN'T ENOUGH PARKING.

WE HAVE A SITUATION GOING ON RIGHT NOW WHERE IT'S, WE'VE GOT A REUSED BUILDING, UH, IT MET OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND IT'S GENERATING TOO MUCH PARKING ONTO THE STREET.

UM, IT, IT WORKS BOTH WAYS SOMETIMES AND, AND, AND THAT IS THE VERY NATURE OF THE PARKING ORDINANCE.

IF, IF THE BUILDING IS OBSOLETE AND THERE'S A PROPOSED CHANGE IN USE THAT REQUIRES MORE PARKING, YOU EITHER TEAR DOWN YOUR BUILDING OR BUY THE LOT NEXT DOOR AND, AND CREATE THE PARKING OR BUY SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT THAT IS THE VERY NATURE OF A LAND USE ORDINANCE.

LET ME, AND WELL, I'M SORRY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT.

AND IN THAT SAME CONTEXT, WE'RE MAKING A PROPOSAL OR A PROPOSAL IS BEING MADE TO US TO BASICALLY OPEN THE DOORS WIDE OPEN IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND NOT HOLD BUSINESSES TO THOSE SAME STANDARDS.

WELL, ONLY BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS THAT THAT'S THE DISTINCTION.

THE POTENTIAL THAT ALDERMAN PRI HAS BROUGHT UP IN DIFFERENT, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES AND HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING AS THE MAYOR POINTED OUT, THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT WE HAVE THAT WIGGLE ROOM CORRECT.

I JUST WANTED TO INJECT, UM, REGARDING THE VARIOUS POTENTIAL PROBLEMS THAT WE MAY ENCOUNTER IN THE FUTURE.

IS THERE NOT, UH, ROOM, I, I, I BELIEVE I HEARD YOU SAY THAT ATTORNEY THAT I DON'T WANT TO SAY WHEN THE PROBLEM ARISES THAT WE CAN ADDRESS IT, BUT IS THERE NOT SOME LEVERAGE FOR THE BOARD WHEREIN

[02:00:01]

GOING FORWARD AS THE BOARD, JUST AS WE ARE ADDRESSING OUR ISSUE TODAY, THEN OF COURSE WE DON'T WANT TO BORROW TROUBLE AND, AND NOT HAVE THOUGHT THINGS THROUGH, BUT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY GOING FORWARD THAT WHEN ISSUES ARISE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THEM.

YES, MA'AM.

GREAT POINT.

YOU ALWAYS DO THE, THE MOST CONSERVATIVE PATH TO TAKE, IF YOU TAKE ACTION IS TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OFF RAMP.

THAT'S THE MOST CONSERVATIVE PATH TO TAKE THAT LOCKS IN EXISTING PARKING THAT MAY PROVE, UM, FACTS MAY CHANGE IN THE NEXT 5, 10, 20 YEARS.

AND YOU MIGHT WANNA REFLECT BACK ON THAT ISSUE AND ALLOW IT OR DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

BUT THIS FIRST STEP AT LEAST LOCKS IN THE PARKING THAT EXISTS SO THAT, THAT YOU'VE GOT TO MAINTAIN WHAT YOU HAVE AND YOU DON'T RISK NOT BEING ABLE TO, TO PROVIDE A USE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE FOR YOUR BUILDING BECAUSE THERE'S NO PHYSICAL SOLUTION TO COMPLY WITH THE PARKING ORDINANCE.

JUST JUMPING BACK TO THE, THE CONVENTION CENTER, UM, ONE MORE TIME.

I THINK IT'LL BE THE LAST TIME I COMMENT ON IT.

I'D JUST LIKE TO AGAIN, KIND OF TRY TO LOOK FORWARD BY, BY LOOKING BACK AND BY THAT I MEAN THE CONVENTION CENTER WAS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED AS A RESULT OF COVID COVID HAS CHANGED THE WORK RULES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

PEOPLE WERE WORKING REMOTELY, QUASI REMOTELY.

NOT A LOT OF BUSINESSES, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR, THEIR BRICK AND MORTAR OPERATIONS, UM, IN FULL OPERATION.

ANY LONGER BUSINESSES, UM, GENERALLY HAVE BACKED AWAY FROM HAVING ANNUAL MEETINGS.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE ANY FINANCIAL DATA, BUT I SUSPECT THAT THE CONVENTION CENTER IS HURTING FINANCIALLY.

IT'S GOTTA BE A DRAIN ON THE COUNTY FINANCES.

AND LOOKING FORWARD, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE A LOT OF CHANGE HAPPENING WHERE WE WILL SEE LARGE GROUPS, CONVENTION GROUPS COMING BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY.

I MAY BE WRONG, UM, BUT I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING IN, IN THE WORKFORCE ALDERMAN BRILL.

IF, IF, IF I COULD, I'LL SORT OF DEBATE THAT ARGUMENT.

UM, I BELIEVE WHENEVER YOU SEE THE DOUBLETREE ANNEX GET BACK UP AND RUNNING, I THINK YOU'LL SEE INCREASED ACTIVITY AT THE CONVENTION CENTER.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING AS WELL AS THEY COULD IS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AMPLE HOTEL SPACE, A CONVENTION COMES HERE, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOMS BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE COMES HERE WITH, YOU KNOW, 3, 4, 500 PARTICIPANTS, THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO AND SPREAD OUT THROUGH MULTIPLE HOTELS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT YOU'LL SEE, YOU KNOW, INCREASED ACTIVITY THERE AT THE CONVENTION CENTER.

AGAIN, YOU'RE RIGHT, THE COUNTY OWNS IT.

IT'S VERY CLEAR THEY PUT THEIR NAME ON IT, TOOK OUR NAME OFF 'CAUSE IT'S THEIRS.

THEY OWN IT, THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT.

BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THE RECORDS AND ALL THE DATA SHOWS THAT IT'S IMPROVING AS FAR AS THE PERFORMANCE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT.

AND I'VE BEEN TOLD NOT DIRECTLY BY ANY COUNTY OFFICIAL, BUT INDIRECTLY THROUGH STAFF, THAT THE COUNTY IS CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF SELLING THAT WATERFRONT PIECE OF THIS WRITER'S PROPERTY THAT THEY BOUGHT.

THE POINT OR CONCERN BEING, AND, AND THIS IS JUST SORT OF A WHAT IF SCENARIO, GOING BACK A FEW YEARS, WE HAD A DEVELOPER COME INTO THE COMMUNITY THAT'S THE KESSLER GROUP, KESSLER CORPORATION, AND THEIR PROPOSAL TO THE COMMUNITY WAS THEY NEEDED THREE PROJECTS TO MAKE THEIR VISION VIABLE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT, AGAIN, THE CONVENTION CENTER MIGHT NEVER GET BACK UP ON ITS FEET.

COUNTY OFFICIALS HAVE GOTTA BE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO STAY IN THE CONVENTION CENTER BUSINESS, AND THEY MIGHT MAKE A DECISION THAT IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT TO KEEP THAT, THAT THAT OPERATION GOING IN THE FUTURE.

AND SO THEY PUT IT UP ON THE MARKET TO SELL THAT PROPERTY.

THEY ALSO OWN THE WATERFRONT LOT.

THAT WAS, THAT WAS FORMALLY THE SHRINER'S PROPERTY.

[02:05:01]

SO PICTURE A, A DEVELOPER, A BIG DEVELOPER, AND MAYBE EVEN JUST USE KESSLER AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PROPERTY IN TOWN THAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GONNA BE RENOVATING.

BUT, UH, I THINK INFLATION, UH, INFLATIONARY COSTS PUT A, UH, A STOP TO THAT.

BUT WHAT IF, WHAT IF THE CONVENTION CENTER BECAME AVAILABLE TO THE PRIVATE MARKETPLACE? WHAT IF THAT SHRINERS LOT BECAME AVAILABLE IN, YOU KNOW, PUT UP FOR SALE? DO YOU THINK MAYBE A CUSTOMER CORPORATION WOULD, WOULD LOOK AT COMING BACK INTO THE TOWN BUYING THE CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTY FROM THE COUNTY, BUYING THE WATERFRONT LOT FROM THE COUNTY.

NOW THEY'VE GOT THE THREE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT THEY WANTED ORIGINALLY TO ACHIEVE THE VISION.

THIS BOARD HAS ALREADY TAKEN ACTION TO EXEMPT THE PARKING, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTY, NOT FOR THE SHRINERS PROPERTY.

AND THE ELKS BUILDING DOES NOT HAVE ON STREET PARKING, BUT THEY, THEY BOUGHT A SMALL PARKING LOT, UH, OVER ON HANCOCK STREET.

SO PICTURE THOSE PROPERTIES BEING DEVELOPED, SPECIFICALLY THE CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTY, A BIG DEVELOPER, UM, LIKE KESSLER OR ANY, ANY LARGE DEVELOPERS MIGHT BUILD A LARGE HOTEL DOWN DOWN AT THE CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTY THAT WOULD INCORPORATE A CONVENTION CENTER, CONFERENCE CENTER AS A PART OF THAT OPERATION.

PRETTY COMPELLING ARGUMENT TO MINIMIZE OR ELIMINATE MOST OF THE PARKING LOTS DOWN THERE.

BUT WHERE WILL THAT PARKING THEN HAVE TO TAKE PLACE BECAUSE THAT WHOLE AREA HAS BEEN EXEMPTED.

SO IT, IT'S JUST LOOKING FORWARD, WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS OF TRYING TO ADDRESS AN INTERNAL PERMITTING PROBLEM BY INCORPORATING BY MORE THAN DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE OFF STREET PARKING EXEMPTED AREA DOWNTOWN WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LONG TERM IMPACT OF THAT MIGHT BE.

I'LL, UM, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL BITE ON THIS ONE.

UM, I'VE HEARD SOME CONSPIRACY THEORIES SINCE I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE, BUT I DON'T KNOW, I'VE BEEN THAT THIS RABBIT HOLE.

UM, HELP ME UNDERSTAND STAFF ATTORNEY, THE CONVENTION CENTER BEING INCLUDED IN THIS AREA, IF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OPTION WAS REMOVED, THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT EXCEPT FOR WHAT IT IS TODAY.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO KEEP THEIR 75, I CAN'T READ 76, 76 PARKING SPACES ON THAT SITE.

SO WHATEVER USE, IF THEY DEMOLISHED THAT CONVENTION CENTER, IT'S IN THE DISTRICT, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NOT, NOT CONTRIBUTING.

ASSUME THEY COULD DEMOLISH IT.

UM, THEY WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT OF 76 SPACES.

SO A COUPLE OPTIONS.

SO IT COULD EITHER BE CARVED OUT OF THESE BOUNDARIES OR IF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FEATURE IS TAKEN AWAY, THEN ALL OF ALDERMAN'S CONCERN ABOUT THE CONVENTION CENTER PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED.

CORRECT? YES, SIR.

I, I, YOU KNOW, ONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TO DO SOME MATH TO FIGURE OUT, GIVEN THE HEIGHT ORDINANCE, WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM DENSITY PER ROOM YOU COULD GET ON THAT SITE WITH THE 76 SPACES TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE DELTA MIGHT BE.

IT MAY WELL BE THAT GIVEN THE NUMBER OF ROOMS THE HOTEL MIGHT REQUIRE 97 PARKING SPACES, YET THEY'VE ONLY LEGALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SEVEN SIX.

SO THAT COULD BE SITUATION WHERE THERE'S, THEY GET A FREE PASS ON 20 PARKING SPACES, WHICH WOULD THEN TURN TO A BUSINESS DECISION.

DO THEY WANT A HOTEL THAT CAN'T PARK EVERYONE OR NOT? BUT, BUT YES, THAT, THEORETICALLY THAT COULD HAPPEN.

AND THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT ARMOR APPEAL TALKED ABOUT WAS THE OLD SHRINER PROPERTY ON THE CORNER THAT IS NOT BEING INCLUDED IN THIS.

SO WHATEVER GOES THERE WITH, AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THE 75 FOOT CAMMA SETBACKS, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO A WHOLE LOT THERE ANYWAY.

UM, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE.

INTERESTING STORY, ALMAN PRI YOU HAVE ME ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT, BUT I I DON'T QUITE SEE HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN.

IT WAS A VERY

[02:10:01]

WELL, YOU, YOU HAD TWO, WHAT, TWO YEARS AGO, THREE YEARS AGO, YOU HAD A DEVELOPER COME INTO THIS COMMUNITY WITH A, A GRAND SCHEME.

THEY WANTED THREE PROPERTIES TO, YOU KNOW, TO USE THEIR BUSINESS MODEL.

THEY, THEY WANTED THREE PROPERTIES.

NOTHING TO SAY THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT MAKE A DECISION THE COUNTY'S ALREADY CONSIDERED OR CONSIDERING SELLING THE WATERFRONT SHRINERS LOT.

GIVEN, GIVEN THE, THE NATURE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER.

AGAIN, IT IT'S, IT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM THAT IF THEY HAVEN'T HAD, THEY MIGHT HAVE IT ABOUT WHETHER THEY WANT TO STAY IN THE CONVENTION CENTER BUSINESS AND IF THEY DECIDE AT ANY POINT IN TIME THAT IT'S JUST NOT FINANCIALLY VIABLE TO CONTINUE THAT OPERATION, ARE THEY GONNA HANG ON TO IT? MAYBE, MAYBE THEY WOULD, MAYBE THEY CONVERTED INTO, YOU KNOW, COUNTY OFFICES 'CAUSE CONSOLIDATING MORE OF THEIR, THEIR SATELLITE OFFICES DOWN THERE.

I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY MIGHT CONSIDER SELLING IT, SO, OKAY.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS OF INCLUDING SPECIFICALLY THAT AREA IN THIS? WHY NOT EXCLUDE IT? IT CAN ALWAYS BE ADDED LATER ON, BUT WHY NOT JUST EXCLUDE IT? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I'VE GOT A CONCERN AND MAYBE ON PAPER IT LOOKS GOOD TO INCLUDE IT, BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD EXCLUDE IT GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THOSE PARKING SPACES.

I DON'T THINK THOSE PARKING SPACES SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS OVERALL PICTURE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO IT IS, IT MAY BE A, WELL, I, I WON'T PUT IT INTO A CONSPIRACY THEORY, UM, BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD A DEVELOPER LOOKING, UH, AT THIS COMMUNITY, THERE MAY BE OTHERS THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THAT.

UH, I THINK I'M ABOUT DONE.

SO WHILE YOU'RE REVIEWING YOUR NOTES, I WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN BRING THIS THING IN FOR A LANDING.

SO WE CAN EITHER DO NOTHING AS ALDERMAN PRILL STATED EARLIER, KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD THAT HE ACCUSED THE PREVIOUS BOARD OF DOING WHAT I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF IT ALL, OR WE CAN APPROVE IT AS IT'S WRITTEN AND PROPOSED TONIGHT, OR WE CAN APPROVE IT TONIGHT AND TAKE OUT THE SPECIAL USE ASPECT OR WE CAN GIVE DIRECTION TO REDRAW THE BOUNDARIES OR DO BOTH.

DID I MISS ANY OPTIONS? OKAY, SO WHEN YOU TAKE OUT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OUT OF THIS, ANY, ANY EVIDENCE OF A BUSINESS COMING OR BUYING PROPERTY ON THE WARD OR WHATEVER, THEN THE SPECIAL USE CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME? CORRECT.

SO IF WE EXCLUDE IT TONIGHT, IS THAT, AND STAFF COMES BACK AND SAYS, HEY LOOK, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT'S HAD SOME INTEREST, BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH 'EM BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OPTIONS.

THEY CAN BRING IT BACK BEFORE THE BOARD EXACTLY.

, ONE FINAL, UM, COMMENT.

I THINK IT'S A FINAL COMMENT IS IF YOU NOTICE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ANYBODY ATTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING, SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH US, YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WOULD'VE HAD REPRESENTATIVES HERE ARGUING THAT THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY AND URGING THIS BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

BUT YOU HAVE NOBODY HERE.

SO THERE'S A MESSAGE IN THAT, THAT MAYBE THE URGENCY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ISN'T AS MUCH OF AN URGENCY.

I UNDERSTAND, UH, STAFF'S CONCERN OF WANTING TO GET THIS ADDRESSED PLANNING BOARD.

UM, I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS.

I THINK

[02:15:01]

AT LEAST THE, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS PRO-DEVELOPMENT AT ALL COSTS.

THAT THE CITY, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN.

UM, I I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN WITH THAT PHILOSOPHY BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF DEVELOPMENT AT ALL COSTS.

THERE ARE COSTS TO BE PAID WITH DEVELOPMENT.

I'D RATHER SEE DELIBERATE SMART, WELL THOUGHT OUT GROWTH HAPPENING IN THIS COMMUNITY, NOT JUST DEVELOPMENT AT ALL COSTS.

SO THE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HAS EXPRESSED A LEVEL OF URGENCY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS ADDRESSING OR TRYING TO ADDRESS A PERMITTING ISSUE AS A RESULT OF MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I JUST DON'T THINK, I THINK THIS PROPOSAL IS MORE THAN IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL WITH A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, A MORE WELL THOUGHT OUT FOOTPRINT, AND AT THAT POINT I'D PROBABLY BE INCLINED TO GO ALONG WITH IT.

I'M CERTAINLY NOT INCLINED TO GO ALONG WITH THIS GIVEN THE BREADTH OF WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.

SO ANYBODY THAT THINKS I'M NOT PRO-DEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD BE WRONG.

I ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT, BUT AGAIN, I WANT IT TO BE WELL THOUGHT OUT AND AS MUCH DETAIL ADDRESSED AHEAD OF TIME, UM, BEFORE APPROVALS ARE MADE.

WELL, I DO WANNA REBUT A COUPLE OF THOSE COMMENTS 'CAUSE, UH, KNOWING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD PERSONALLY, I, I THINK HE WOULD TAKE OFFENSE TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND AS BEING PRO DEVELOPMENT AT ALL COSTS.

AND I ALSO WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THEY TOOK FIVE MONTHS.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS A SENSE OF URGENCY.

I THINK IT WAS A DELIBERATE AND PLANNED PROCESS.

SO I DO WANT TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT.

IT'S PLEASURE OF THE BOARD ON ITEM NUMBER 12, PLEASE SOMEWHAT MAKE A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD FOR CONSENSUS AND AT LEAST TO MOVE FORWARD WAS TO, UH, AND VERIFY CONSENSUS, I GUESS IS TO TAKE OUT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ONE AND THEN, UH, TO ADDRESS ONE OF ALMOND PRIS CONCERNS.

I THINK IT'S A VALID QUESTION TO ASK AND TALK TO THE COUNTY, UH, ABOUT THE CONVENTION CENTER.

SO I THINK THOSE ARE TWO, UH, WELL, ONE QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ASKED AND THEN A CONSENSUS THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO COME TO ABOUT, I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF.

I'M FLEXIBLE ON EITHER ONE OF THOSE.

IF YOU WANT TAKE IT OUT OR YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT IN, I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DEFER TAKING ACTION ON THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE UNTIL THOSE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE DETAIL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO AND HAVE, AND THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH STAFF ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF REDRAWING THE BOUNDARIES AND DISCUSS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UH, PROVISION, AND THEN COME BACK AT AN UPCOMING MEETING WITH A REVISED PROPOSAL THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCEPTABLE.

WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION TO, CAN I INTERJECT HERE OR YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE MOTION? MR. DAVIS, IF WE DON'T GET A SECOND, THE MOTION DIES, CORRECT? CORRECT.

DOES ANYBODY WANNA SECOND THE MOTION? IF NOT, WE CAN MOVE ON TO COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

DID YOU GET CLARITY OR ARE YOU MORE CONFUSED? ? WELL, I, I CAN I SEE? WELL, WELL, WE NEED TO, IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

HEARING NO SECOND ALDERMAN ROYAL, I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE RESIDENTS WHO POSED QUESTIONS AND SAID THAT THEY NEEDED MORE CLARITY WITH THIS LENGTHY DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HAD.

WAS THOSE ISSUES ADDRESSED OR DO YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH UNDERSTANDING?

[02:20:01]

MADAM CLERK, DO WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE DID.

I'M PRETTY SURE WE, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

CAN THAT JUST BE A SIMPLE YAY ON MAY NOT.

YOU CAN REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OR BY MOTION, WHATEVER YOU WANT BE.

IT'S A PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

SHE SAYS NO, SO, OKAY.

I'M SORRY, WHAT DID YOU, WHAT DID YOU SHE SAID DON'T WORRY ABOUT HER PROVIDING ANY COMMENTARY.

SO THE ITEM NUMBER 12 IS STILL OPEN.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION.

I THOUGHT WE JUST NEEDED CONSENSUS TO CHANGE, UH, THINGS, BUT, UM, I THOUGHT A MOTION WAS MADE AND IT DIED BECAUSE OF THE SECOND, SO THEN IT DID, DID, BUT WE'RE STILL, YEAH.

SO NOW WE'RE IN DISCUSSION.

SO DISCUSSION WITH HOPEFULLY ANOTHER MOTION TO TAKE SOME SORT OF ACTION IF WE EXTRACT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THAT WAS AN OPTION.

AND TO INCLUDE, UH, DELETING THE CONVENTION CENTER.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BEST OPTION TO ME, GIVEN THAT WE NEEDED MORE DISCUSSION ON THE CONVENTION CENTER.

THAT'S PROGRESS IN MY MIND.

, I'M SORRY.

WELL, THEN LET ME MAKE THE MOTION IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DELETE OR EXTRACT FROM IT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND NOT TO INCLUDE THE CONVENTION CENTER TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH THOSE REVISIONS.

YES, MA'AM.

TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE WITH THOSE PROVISIONS.

WE HAVE A SECOND, HOWEVER.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE UNLESS HAVE A ROLL CALL, STARTING WITH ALDERMAN BEST? ALDERMAN BEST, YES.

MOTION CARRIES ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM NUMBER 12.

NUMBER 12.

MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO ASK.

NO, I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR BRIEF BREAK.

PLEASE MAKE A MOTION.

10 MINUTES FOR A 10 MINUTE BREAK.

SECOND.

I HAVE A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

WE'RE IN RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES.

WE ARE BACK.

AND WE ARE AT ITEM NUMBER

[13. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Annex 3277 Old Airport Road.]

13.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX 32 77 OLD AIRPORT ROAD, MR. HUGHES.

SO, MAYOR MICHAEL AND ROSE MILLER SUBMITTED A PETITION TO ANNEX PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

THEY HAVE INDICATED PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY, AND RECENTLY ENTERED INTO A WATER AND SEWER USER AGREEMENT FOR THE SERVICE AT THE SITE.

THE BOARD'S ASKED TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING THIS ORDINANCE.

DOES BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY.

AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS IS FOR ITEM NUMBER 13 TO ANNEX.

CONSIDER ORDERING, UH, ANNEXING 32 77 OLD AIRPORT ROAD.

WROTE, MAYOR, MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? ON ITEM NUMBER 13, MR. MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A, IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX.

3, 2, 7, 7 OLD AIRPORT ROAD.

A SECOND.

HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

14, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX A PORTION OF TAX PARTIAL ID.

LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, STARTING WITH ALDERMAN BRISSON.

[14. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Annex a Portion of Tax Parcel 8-209- 13001 and All of 8-209-28001.]

[02:25:01]

8 2 0 9 1 3 0 0 1 AND ALL OF 8 2 0 9 2 8 0 0 1.

MR. HUGHES, SO MAYOR WEYERHAEUSER PETITIONED TO ANNEX THESE PARTIALS, AND YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT THE BOARD CONVEYED TO WEYERHAEUSER, UH, ONE OF THESE PARTIALS ON AUGUST 22ND OF THIS YEAR.

AFTER PROVING AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY, WE ASK TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX.

ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? YES.

IS THIS OUT WEST NEW, OR, I MEAN WAREHOUSE? YES.

THE, THE AREA WHERE THE, UM, PLASTIC SURGEON OR WHATEVER THAT CENTER, IS THAT WHERE THAT'S LOCATED? I BELIEVE.

AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 14.

MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? ON ITEM NUMBER 14, IF NO QUESTION.

I MAD.

NO, YOU MAD.

I YIELD TO YOU .

MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, CONSIDER ADOPT THE, CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE FOR ANNEX, A PORTION OF TAX PARCEL 8 2 0 9 1 3 0 0 1, AND ALL OF 8 2 0 9 2 8 0 0.

ONE SECOND.

SECOND.

HAVE A SECOND.

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX TAX PARCELS.

LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN PRILL.

[15. Conduct a Public Hearing and Consider Adopting an Ordinance to Annex Tax Parcels 8- 210- 11002, 8-210- 11003 and a Portion of 8- 210-23000.]

8 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 8 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 3.

AND A PORTION OF 8 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 0.

MR. HUGHES.

SO MCCULLOUGH FARMS HAS PETITION TO ANNEX, UH, THESE THREE PARTIALS.

THE PROPERTY IS VACANT LAND AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY OF NEWBRIDGE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.

UH, WE ALSO HAVE ALLISON WITH PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

YOU'RE ASKED TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX BOARD.

HAVE QUESTIONS? IS THIS THE, UH, THE ONE INVOLVING, WAS IT MCCULLOCH FARMS? THAT'S CORRECT.

I IS THIS A, UM, A NEW PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT? THIS WOULD BE A NEW PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT.

I MEAN, IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HAS THAT BEEN APPROVED ALREADY? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

IT'S NOT.

DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT PLAN, THAT THAT PHASE MIGHT BE PLANNED? WE DO NOT.

SO WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER IT'LL HAPPEN.

THAT'S CORRECT.

MY UNDERSTANDING, SIR.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S BEING SOLD TO A DEVELOPER.

THAT'S ALL I KNOW.

UM, SO MY EXPECTATION IS THAT IT WOULD BE FORTHCOMING, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW.

IS IT WAREHOUSE OR PROPERTY CORLY? NO.

DO, DO WE WANNA WAIT TILL THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENS OR? YES, SIR.

LET'S, LET'S DO THAT.

WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY HERE WHO CAN TELL US ALL ABOUT IT.

JUST PROCEDURALLY WE'LL WAIT TILL THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.

AUTUMN .

ANY O OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? UM, NO.

NO.

I, I'D JUST LIKE TO FIND OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT AND MAYBE, UM, WE'LL GET THOSE ANSWERS.

ABOUT THAT, UH, DEVELOPMENT.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER 15.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS ALLISON ENGBRETSON.

I AM WITH PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING.

I'M A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LAND PLANNER WORKING ON THE NEXT PHASE OF, UH, CR ROOM FOREST.

UH, AND THIS IS OUR FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS TO BRING FORTH THE ANNEXATION TO MAKE SURE IT CAN COME INTO THE CITY.

AND THEN OF COURSE WE'LL FOLLOW SUIT WITH DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? THE DEVELOPMENT TO EXPAND OR? YES.

IT'S, IT'S THE NEXT PHASE.

UH, THERE PHASES THREE AND FOUR ARE CONTAINED IN THE ANNEXATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

AND THOSE ARE THE NEXT PHASES THAT THE, THAT WILL BE SOLD AND, AND DEVELOPED.

DID YOU NAME A COMMUNITY A, UH, CRAYBURN FOREST IS, IS IS JUST THE NEXT TWO PHASES THAT WERE ALREADY, UH, PREUSS

[02:30:01]

SO QUESTION.

SO I KNOW THAT THIS WAS DISCUSSED A WHILE BACK WITH THE CRAYBURN FOREST.

UM, WE HAD CITIZENS THAT COME OUT WAS REALLY, UM, KIND OF UPSET BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE INGRESS AND EGRESS.

SO WITH THIS NEW SITE, WITH THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, THERE WILL BE A OUTLET, AN INGRESS, AND EGRESS ON THE OTHER END OF THIS PROPERTY.

OH, YOU NOT REALLY KNOW THAT? I CAN, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT IT WON'T BE, UH, GERMANE TO OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ANNEXATION, I DON'T THINK.

BUT YES, WE ARE PLANNING A SECOND OUTLET.

THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW BECAUSE I KNOW THE CITIZENS WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

WE HEARD ABOUT THAT.

WELL, ALL OF THE BEST KEEP IN MIND THAT, UH, THEY WILL BE GOING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, AND THAT'S THE BODY THAT WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A, THE FINAL PLAN INCLUDES WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

WELL, THEN IT HAS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN.

IS THAT NO, NO.

AFTER THE PLAN.

JUST BECAUSE THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD APPROVES IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT IT'S, NO, IT DOESN'T COME TO US.

SO IF YOU, YOU WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT HAPPENS, YOU NEED TO ATTEND THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WHEN THIS, WHEN THIS, THIS APPLICANT IS GOING THROUGH THAT PLANNING PROCESS TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR HAPPENS.

I THINK MR. DAVIS, AND THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL, I THINK MR. DAVIS CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON WHEN THE BOARD, IT WAS MY FIRST TERM THAT WE MADE THAT CHANGE, I BELIEVE.

TO TAKE THE POLITICS OUT OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT WAS BUNDLED IN WITH THE SPECIALIST PERMIT BECAUSE WE WERE, WE WERE HAVING POLITICAL TROUBLES.

, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES, THEY CHECK THE BOX ORDINANCE.

WHEN YOU COMPLY WITH THE CODE, YOU GET YOUR APPROVAL.

THERE'S NO POLITICS, THERE'S NO DISCRETION, THERE'S NO, I WOULD, LIKE, OFTENTIMES DEVELOPERS WILL MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS TO PLEASE THE COMMUNITY, BUT THAT'S VOLUNTARY.

BUT WHEN IT GOT TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMAN, OFTENTIMES THE RULE OF LAW TOOK A BACK SEAT TO WHAT CONSTITUENTS WANTED, AND THAT WAS PRESENTING PROBLEMS. SO THE BOARD AT THAT TIME PUT EVERYTHING AT THE PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LEVEL.

AND SO THIS WAS THE SAME ISSUE.

WAS IT IN WARD THREE WITH THE RESIDENTS THAT CAME HERE AFTER SIX WORLD WAR SIX.

AND, UM, HAD SO MANY ISSUES WITH DEVELOPMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WARD THREE, SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT BLUE WATER RISE WITH ALL THE ISSUES WITH THE BUILDER YES.

WITH THE HOMES.

OH, OKAY.

BECAUSE I'M SORRY, NO ONE WAS THERE ON THE FRONT END OF IT.

IT'S A MATTER OF PROCEDURE.

DO WE WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ORDER TO HAVE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS OR? WELL, SHE'S THERE STANDING.

I WOULD SAY IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO TALK WITH, WITH HER, I WOULD SAY LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.

SO, 'CAUSE I, SOME OF MY QUESTIONS ARE MORE DIRECTED TOWARD SCOTT, SO YES, SIR.

THAT'S FINE.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS? YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

UM, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS PIECE, PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ALREADY IN OUR E T J.

AND SO THEREFORE IT IS ALREADY ZONED.

AND THE ZONING IS, I DON'T REMEMBER R SIX.

R SIX.

YES SIR.

IT ACTUALLY HAS THREE ZONINGS.

THREE ZONINGS, BUT PRIMARILY R SIX.

WHICH WAS THE PREVIOUS ISSUE WE HAD WITH THE, WITH THE OTHER.

UM, AND AS FAR AS I KNOW FROM BEING ON THE M P O BOARD AND THE 43 CONNECTOR, THE DRAWINGS HAVE TWO CONNECTIONS.

ONE IS THE CURRENT SAVOY BOULEVARD, WHICH IS AT THE END OF, UH, TRENT CREEK ROAD.

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS FARTHER DEEPER INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO, WHICH CARRIES ON OUT TO 43, WHICH CARRIES ON OUT CONNECTOR TO 43 CONNECTOR.

CONNECTOR.

YES, EXACTLY.

IT BECOMES 43 CONNECTOR.

IT HAS TWO CONNECTIONS INTO THIS CRAVEN FOREST NEIGHBORHOOD OR WILL HAVE, I, I'M ALL FOR DEVELOPMENT AND FOR HOUSING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO YOU MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN, WITHIN THAT CURRENT, UM, CRAVEN FOREST AND MOVING FORWARD WITH MORE DEVELOPMENT, THERE'LL BE MORE THAN JUST ONE INLET AND OUTLET.

ABSOLUTELY.

AND FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

SO THAT WILL ALSO FURTHER THAT DISCUSSION.

SO NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE SPEAKER.

I GOT ONE MORE QUESTION.

WE'RE DOING A, UM, THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE WITH THIS IS WHEN ARE, WHEN DO YOU FORESEE OR EVEN AN EXPECTATION TIMELINE OF THIS PROJECT STARTING? IT DEPENDS A LITTLE BIT ON WHEN WE SUBMIT THE PLANS AND HOPEFULLY GET APPROVAL, BUT IT IS A LONG PROCESS.

I KNOW I, THIS PROBABLY ISN'T APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE

[02:35:01]

THIS IS A, A LARGE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY, AS YOU KNOW.

UH, SO PART OF THAT ANSWER IS DEPENDENT ON WHEN HIGHWAY 43 COMES IN AND IT GETS EXTENDED.

UH, WE OBVIOUSLY WILL BE ABLE TO DO SOME THINGS EARLY ON, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY A POINT IN TIME WHERE IT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT SECONDARY ENTRANCE AND, AND, UH, TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT GO WITH THAT.

UH, SO WITH THAT, WHAT I THINK BEST CASE SCENARIO, WHILE THIS MAY NOT HAPPEN, BUT, BUT BEST CASE SCENARIO TAKES ABOUT 12 TO 18 MONTHS TO GET ALL THE PERMITS AND ENTITLEMENTS IN PLACE.

SO IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN BEFORE THAT TIMELINE.

UH, NOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION.

THERE MAY BE SOME HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION THAT COULD OCCUR PRIOR TO THAT.

AND, AND WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THE M P O BOARD 43 CONNECTORS STILL 2025.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT'S SO MOVED.

A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

EIGHT TWO TEN ONE ONE ZERO ZERO TWO EIGHT TWO TEN ONE ONE ZERO ZERO THREE.

IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

ON ITEM NUMBER 15, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX TAX PARCELS.

AND A PORTION OF EIGHT TWO TEN TWO THREE ZERO ZERO ZERO.

SECOND SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL STARTING WITH ALDERMAN ROYAL.

[16. Appointment(s).]

IS APPOINTMENTS.

UM, ONLY ONE I'M SHOWING IS ALDERMAN KINZIE.

PROP PROPOSING HIS OWNING.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE ONE TONIGHT.

NO, I DO NOT, SIR.

UH, ANY OTHER APPOINTMENTS THAT I'M MISSING? UH, QUESTION FOR MR. HUGHES.

HOW MANY APPLICANTS DO WE HAVE FOR THE M S D ADVISOR? CURRENTLY WE HAVE 13 APPLICANTS FOR THE M S D ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

UM, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO HOPE THAT WE CAN BRING THIS TO THE BOARD BY THE SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER.

UM, BUT WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO GET A, A LITTLE BIT LARGER POOL TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD ON .

YOU GOT ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ON THAT? UH, NO.

I'M MOST A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED.

UH, IN, IN THE NUMBER SURPRISING YOU APPLICANTS, GIVEN THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO KIND OF RAISED THEIR HAND AT THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, UM, A LITTLE SURPRISED, A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED.

UM, WERE YOU GONNA SEND OUT ANOTHER KIND OF NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS URGING THEM TO CONSIDER SOMETHING? YES, SIR.

WE WILL.

YOU KNOW, INTERNALLY, STAFF WAS HOPING WE'D HAVE ABOUT 30 APPLICANTS.

THAT'S WHAT WE ANTICIPATED.

AND, AND YOU, SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE ABOUT HALFWAY THERE.

IS 10 SEATS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

ATTORNEY'S REPORT, NOTHING REPORT TONIGHT, SIR.

UM,

[17. Attorney' s Report.]

CITY MANAGER'S

[18. City Manager' s Report.]

REPORT TWO ITEMS FOR YOU.

JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYONE.

FEST IS COMING UP ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 14TH AND SUNDAY OCTOBER 15TH.

SO, UM, SOME OF THE DOWNTOWN STREETS WILL, WILL BE CLOSED STARTING AT 5:00 PM UH, TO ALLOW THE VENDORS TO LOAD IN.

SO HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE A GOOD WEEKEND FOR FOLKS TO COME DOWNTOWN AND ENJOY THOSE FESTIVITIES.

UH, THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS, UM, BECAME AWARE THAT, UM, THERE COULD HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE WE HAVE, UH, UH, THE, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO CURRENTLY, UH, OUR ORDINANCE PREVENTS ANY TEMPORARY SIGNAGE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

AND SO WE KNEW, KNOW THAT SEVERAL GROUPS, UM, HAD THEIR SIGNS TAKEN DOWN OVER THE PAST, UH, WEEK ONE OF THOSE GROUPS, UM, UH, WENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND, AND WAS BASICALLY MAKING THE COMMENTS THAT, THAT THE CITY DID NOT SUPPORT THEIR ENDEAVORS AND DID NOT SUPPORT, UM, THINGS SUCH AS, UH, BREAST CANCER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND THEN THE FIRST THING I WANNA SAY IS THE CITY SUPPORTS CAUSES LIKE THAT, BUT WE HAVE ORDINANCES THAT, THAT WE ARE BY, UH, OBLIGATED TO, TO FOLLOW.

AND OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, WE STARTED A CRACKDOWN ON THESE

[02:40:01]

TEMPORARY SIGNS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

UM, AND AS THE ATTORNEY AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS MULTIPLE TIMES, IT'S EITHER ALL OR NOTHING WITH THIS.

UM, WE EITHER ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE OR WE DON'T ENFORCE IT.

AND THEN WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THAT ORDINANCE IN PLACE? UM, FOLKS CAN PUT THEIR SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, BUT WHEN YOU ARE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT, THAT CREATES A SAFETY ISSUE.

AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE DO THAT.

SO JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.

I THINK THE CITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SUPPORTER OF, OF, OF ANY GROUPS THAT, THAT HAVE CERTAIN CAUSES.

AND SO THIS IS STRICTLY, UH, UH, A MATTER OF THE LAW THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW.

I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP.

AND JUST TO ADD A LITTLE, UM, COMMENTARY AROUND THAT, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS ACTIVE IN THAT PARTICULAR GROUP.

THEY WERE VERY UPSET THAT THERE BANNERS HAD BEEN REMOVED AND THAT THEY'VE DONE IT, I THINK HE SAID FOR 14 YEARS.

UM, AND NEVER HAD AN ISSUE.

UM, THEY GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS BEING TARGETED.

AND I SAID, I, I ASSURE YOU THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE, I'VE, WE'VE SHARED PICTURES ON SOCIAL MEDIA WITH THE SIGNS, THE, THE HANDWRITTEN SHARPIE SIGN THAT SAYS MATTRESSES FOR $89, OR WE PAY CASH FOR YOUR HOUSE.

THOSE SORT OF SIGNS ARE ILLEGAL, JUST LIKE THE BANNER THAT WAS PROMOTING THE BREAST CANCER RIDE WAS AS WELL.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS GETS BACK TO, YOU KNOW, I I ASKED SCOTT THE QUESTION, UH, AND AS ALDERMAN ASTOR DID TOO, BECAUSE ALDERMAN ASTOR HAS A CONSTITUENT THAT IS INVOLVED, I BELIEVE IT'S THE ELKS LODGE MAYBE THAT HAS THEIR ANNUAL YARD SALE.

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS.

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, SORRY.

THEY WERE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND THEY HAD THE SAME ISSUES.

THEY HAD THEIR SIGN TAKEN UP.

UM, I WAS AT, UM, UH, SCHOOL GAME LAST YEAR AND THERE WERE SOFTBALLS SIGN UP SIGNS THAT HAD BEEN TAKEN UP.

AND I GOT A EAR EARFUL ABOUT THAT.

SO, UM, WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT IN WHAT WE DO.

UM, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE.

MR. DAVIS, UM, QUESTION, CAN YOU PROVIDE US SOME CLARITY AROUND WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE? IT'S EITHER ALL OR NOTHING, OR ARE THERE ANY EXEMPTIONS? BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ASKED ABOUT NON-PROFITS AND THINGS.

NO.

UM, THE, THE PROHIBITION AGAINST HAVING SIGNS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY IS PURELY A SAFETY ISSUE.

CITY HAS A BURDEN TO MAINTAIN SAFE CORRIDORS FOR PASSAGE THAT INCLUDES LINE OF SIGHT.

WHEN SIGNAGE STARTS CLOGGING THAT AND SOMEONE GETS HURT, WE DEAL WITH THE LIABILITY FOR THAT.

SO IT'S, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SIGN, THE CONTENT OF THE SIGN.

IN FACT, WE CLEARLY CANNOT HAVE ANY SAY OVER WHAT THE SIGNS SAY.

SO WHETHER IT'S A NONPROFIT FOR-PROFIT MATTRESSES, BOY SCOUTS, THE CONTENT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ANSWER.

IT'S THE PHYSICAL SIGN THAT'S LOCATED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE REGARDING THIS IS N C D O T, RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

WHICH ORDINANCE DO WE FOLLOW? I'M 90% SURE THAT D O T REGULATES THEIR OWN RIGHT OF WAY.

NOW I DO BELIEVE THE STATUTE ALLOWS FOR THE CITIES TO, UH, SUPPLEMENT THEIR REGULATION.

UM, SO THAT MIGHT BE A CALL TO D O T.

DO THEY WANT US TO PICK UP SIGNS IN THEIR, IN THEIR CORRIDOR AS WELL? THE PROBLEM FOR CONSTITUENTS IS GONNA BE THEY DON'T KNOW.

THEY DON'T KNOW.

THEY DON'T.

AND, AND SO THAT PRESENTS A PRACTICAL PROBLEM.

BUT I THINK TECHNICALLY, D O T, THAT'S DOT'S BURDEN TO REGULATE AND WE CAN HELP THEM OR NOT IF THEY ALLOW US.

THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT.

UH, MR. HUGHES, UM, WE, WE ARE OBVIOUSLY ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE WITH REGARDS TO THESE, THE SIGNS MENTIONED.

IS PART OF THAT ENFORCEMENT ALSO LOOKING AT THE SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS FOR BUSINESSES? IT IS.

AND, AND, UM, AND I ACTUALLY NOTICED A SERIES OF SIX TODAY ON, ON ONE OF THE DOWNTOWN STREETS THAT STAFF IS GETTING READY TO ADDRESS ON THAT AS WELL.

BUT YES, THE DOWNTOWN IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THAT.

SO I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD EXPECT TO BE HEARING SOME COMPLAINTS OR SOCIAL MEDIA FOLKS OR WHATEVER MEANS YES SIR, UH, OF HOW ANTI-BUSINESS, UH, THE CITY IS , UH, WHEN WE START PULLING IF, IF WE ARE GOING TO PULL SAMUEL'S BOARD SIGNS.

UM, SO JUST TO BE AWARE OF THAT, I'VE GOT A NICE SOLUTION FOR THAT.

I SENT THE, UH, CITY MANAGER AN ADVERTISEMENT THAT I RECEIVED OF THESE MONUMENT SIGNS.

THAT WOULD BE A GREAT SUGGESTION FOR M S D.

THEY CAN PUT 'EM ON THE VARIOUS CORNERS AND YOU CAN PUT ADVERTISING ON THERE.

IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION YOU COULD THROW ON THAT RECOMMENDATION.

SO, ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT.

TO NEW BUSINESS, STARTING WITH DERMAN.

LET'S GO

[19. New Business.]

PRILL, UH, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING THIS EVENING.

MS. DERMAN ROYAL, NOT TONIGHT.

ER, MCKENZIE? YES.

UH, I RECEIVED A COUPLE OF CALLS TODAY ABOUT, UH, THE, SOME, UM,

[02:45:01]

THE SIGNS ABOUT, UH, THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND I WASN'T ABLE TO ELABORATE ANYTHING 'CAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING THAT SOME NUMBERS OR SOMETHING WAS TAKEN OFF.

SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.

DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, SIR? YES, SIR.

I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS THAT.

SO, UM, LAST WEEK WHILE I WAS OUT OF TOWN, STAFF NOTIFIED ME THAT, UH, ABOUT THE DECISION IN NORTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, UH, CAME DOWN WITH, UM, STAFF GAVE ME SOME OPTIONS THAT MAY, WE MAY WANT TO TAPE OVER IT OR, OR WHATNOT.

AND SO I DID MAKE THE DECISION THAT DECISION IS ON ME, TOLD THEM TO GO AHEAD AND WORK WITH D O T ON REMOVING THOSE.

UM, I DID NOT INFORM THE BOARD BASED ON WHAT THAT DECISION WAS.

UH, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH AT LEAST THE MAYOR ON THAT.

UM, AND IN HINDSIGHT, YES, I WISH I WOULD HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE BOARD TO JUST GET, JUST TO GET COMMENTS, UM, FROM EVERYONE ON THAT I DID NOT ON THAT.

SO THAT, THAT, THAT IS 100% ON ME.

OTTMAN, UH, KENZIE, I DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT.

I DIDN'T KNOW .

THEY SAID, WELL, WHY DO YOU DO THAT? I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I JUST HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

TO SEE ABOUT SAVING TAXPAYER MONEY AND THIS BOARD POSSIBLY SERVING A FULL FOUR YEAR TERM.

IS THAT ALL, SIR? THAT'S IT, SIR.

ALL MY BEST.

NOTHING TONIGHT.

I DON'T REMEMBER IT, SIR.

UM, I'D, I'D RATHER NOT MAKE, UH, THE MEETING LONGER.

BUT I DO WANT TO, UH, ADDRESS SOMETHING, UH, FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS DECISIONS.

UH, LAST MONTH WE HAD A GENTLEMAN ADDRESS THIS ABOUT MOVING THE 2025 CITY OF NEW BERN ELECTION TO AN EVEN YEAR TO SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY.

AND I DID SOME RESEARCH WITH THE CRAVEN COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS WEBSITE AND EVEN CONFIRMED IT WITH, UH, SUSAN WILLIAMS, THE NEW ELECTIONS DIRECTOR LAST NIGHT.

EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN CRAVEN COUNTY, EXCEPT THE CITY OF NEW VERN, HAS MOVED THEIR ELECTIONS TO AN EVEN YEAR.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO US? IT MEANS IF WE DECIDE TO CONTINUE OUR ELECTION IN 2025, UH, WE'LL NOT HAVE ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY TO SHARE THOSE EXPENSES.

UH, WE'LL BEAR THE FULL BRUNT OF PAYING FOR IT THEN.

I RECALL THE DISCUSSION THE PREVIOUS BOARD HAD ABOUT MOVING THE ELECTION, UH, DURING THE FEBRUARY 23RD, 2021 MEETING.

AND THE CURRENT ELECTIONS DIRECTOR, MELANIE RAY, SENT AN ESTIMATE OF EXPENSES TO RUN THE 2021 ELECTION, WHICH WE NOW KNOW WAS DELAYED THE 2022.

BUT HER ESTIMATES WERE THE CITY WOULD INCUR $46,810 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION AND 26,570 FOR A RUNOFF, UH, FOR THE MAYOR IN WARD ONE JUST ESTIMATING FOR A TOTAL OF $73,380.

AND HER ESTIMATE WAS AT THE TIME WAS, UH, $5,300 THAT THE CITY MOVED TO AN EVEN YEAR ELECTION.

UH, THAT BOARD, THE PREVIOUS BOARD DECIDED NOT TO MOVE IT, BUT CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGED IT ANYWAY, AS WE WELL KNOW, UH, AS THIS BOARD KNOWS.

BUT AS A REMINDER TO THE PUBLIC, OUR 2021 ELECTION WAS DELAYED TO 2022 BECAUSE OF THE DELAY IN CENSUS DATA DUE TO COVID AND THE REQUIREMENT TO REDISTRICT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

SO IN 2022, WE PAID THE COUNTY $6,043 FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION, UH, BECAUSE THAT WAS HELD DURING THE FEDERAL PRIMARY AND THEN WE SPENT $28,929 FOR THE RUNOFF OF THE ELECTION OF THE MAYOR IN WARDS TWO.

UH, I ASSUME THAT THE RUNOFF WAS MUCH HIGHER BECAUSE IT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DURING THE FEDERAL RUNOFF ELECTION, WE BORE MORE OF A COST BURDEN BECAUSE WE KEPT ALL SIX OF OUR CITY WARDS OPEN.

UH, SO IT HOLDS THAT THE, UH, ESTIMATES THAT MS. RAY GAVE THE BOARD IN 2021 WERE PRETTY, PRETTY CLOSE.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD EXPECT TO PAY MUCH MORE IN 2025 IF GIVEN INFLATION, UH, THAN THAT $73,000.

UH, THE OTHER ARGUMENT IS ALSO IF WE CONTINUE TO HOLD ELECTION UNTIL 2025, AS YOU KNOW, OUR TERM WILL ONLY BE THREE YEARS AND THREE MONTHS.

UH, BUT I SEE THE, I SEE THIS AS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY.

IF WE DECIDE TO PERMANENTLY MOVE THE ELECTION TO AN EVEN YEAR, SPECIFICALLY 2026, WE WOULD SERVE FOUR YEARS AND THREE MONTHS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY SIX MONTHS SHORTER THAN THE PREVIOUS BOARD.

UH, SO LIKE I SAID, IT'S A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY.

SO, MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO ASK IF THERE'S CONSENSUS FROM THIS BOARD TO GIVE THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTION TO INVESTIGATE WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE IN MOVING OUR ELECTION TO AN EVEN YEAR, SPECIFICALLY 2026,

[02:50:01]

AGAIN, IT'S NOT URGENT, BUT WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT.

BEFORE THE 20 24 20 25 BUDGET, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? UH, ALDERMAN BRINSON, YOU MENTIONED THAT, UM, I GUESS MANY OTHERS, OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE OPTED TO GO TO THE EVID YEAR CYCLE.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY'VE OPTED FOR 2026 OR MANY OF THEM? NO, SOME OF OPTED FOR 2024, SOME OF THEM WENT TO 2024, SOME OF THEM ARE STAGGERED.

SO THEY ARE 24 AND 26.

UM, SO YES, THEY, THEY'VE GONE TO DIFFERENT YEARS DEPENDING ON WHEN THEIR ODD YEAR WAS.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE NO MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IN CRAVEN COUNTY THIS YEAR IS BECAUSE THEY ALL MOVED OFF OF 2023.

AND IN 2025, THE ONLY MUNICIPALITY IS THE CITY OF NEW.

SO I WANTED TO BRING IT TO THIS BOARD'S ATTENTION OF A POTENTIAL 70, AT LEAST $73,000 EXPENSE WHEN WE WERE ARGUING ABOUT THE BUDGET LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ONLY SERVING THREE YEARS AND THREE MONTHS.

AND SO IT'S A OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE A FULL FOUR YEAR TERM AND TO SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY.

I'M NOT SAYING TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, I'M SAYING I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO GIVE CONSENSUS TO, UM, THE ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER TO PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION AND MORE FACT FINDING.

I, I'LL JUST CHIME IN.

UM, I'VE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT IN MY BELIEF OF THE RUNOFF SYSTEM.

, I THINK IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE HISTORY, HISTORY SHOWS THAT SOMETHING LIKE 80% OF THE TIME WHEN YOU HAVE A RUNOFF, WHOEVER CAME IN SECOND PLACE DURING THAT INITIAL ELECTION ENDED UP WINNING THE THREE OF US, I BELIEVE, BEING THAT SITUATION, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? YES.

, WE ALL FINISHED SECOND.

WE ALL OBVIOUSLY ENDED UP WINNING.

UM, SO I WOULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT THE RUNOFF.

UM, SO TO ME, I DON'T WANNA SAY IT'S, UH, NON-NEGOTIABLE, BUT I JUST FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THE RUNOFF.

CAN, CAN I ADDRESS THAT? THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

THAT'S RIGHT.

CAN CAN I ADDRESS THAT? SURE.

WE CAN STILL HAVE, WE CAN STILL MOVE THE ELECTION TO 2026 AND STILL HAVE A RUNOFF IF WE WERE TO STR AND TO SAVE MONEY IF WE WERE TO STRUCTURE OUR ELECTION SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE SCHOOL BOARD RAN THEIR ELECTION PREVIOUSLY, IF THERE WERE THREE OR MORE PEOPLE, BECAUSE IT'S UNAFFILIATED, UH, NOT UNAFFILIATED, NONPARTISAN, IF THERE WERE THREE OR MORE PEOPLE THAT FILED FOR ANY GIVEN SEAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PRIMARY AT THE SAME TIME THE REST OF THE STATE'S GOING THROUGH A PRIMARY.

AND THEREFORE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, THERE WOULD BE A CONTEST OF THOSE THAT ARE UNOPPOSED AND THOSE THAT HAVE, UH, TWO POSITIONS, YOU TAKE THE TOP TWO POSITIONS FROM THE PRIMARY.

SO I DON'T WANT TO JUST THROW OUT THE IDEA OF MOVING IT TO 2026 BECAUSE THERE IS AN OPTION THERE TO KEEP A RUNOFF IN THAT INSTANCE.

IT WOULD JUST BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT SURE.

THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY DO.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? WELL, I'M ALSO FOR THE RUNOFF PROCESS AS WELL.

IT DIDN'T AFFECT ME, BUT STILL I'M ALSO FOR THEIR PROCESS.

UM, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO HEARING WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO US? NO.

NO? OKAY.

THEY GOOD? GOT IT, SIR.

IS THAT ALL? THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THAT'S, UH, THAT'S ALL I HAD.

UM, I WOULD JUST MAKE MENTION FOR, UM, EVERYONE BENEFIT, UH, WE CUT THE RIBBON ON CITY HALL ELEVATOR TODAY.

UH, HAD A NICE TURNOUT, UH, THIS AFTERNOON OR EARLY THIS EVENING TO, UH, COMMEMORATE THAT.

UM, EVIDENTLY IT WAS A REALLY BIG DEAL BECAUSE I HAD ALL THREE TV NETWORKS WANNA DO AN INTERVIEW TODAY.

UM, SO I TOLD 'EM ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING.

BUT, UM, I THINK ONE INTERESTING THING THAT HAS COME OUT ABOUT THIS IS IT'S MORE THAN JUST THE ELEVATOR.

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN TO THE RESTROOM, IT'S A VERY NICE RESTROOM FACILITY.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TO RUN DOWNSTAIRS.

UM, YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO GET THROUGH LIKE WE DID WHEN WE HAD THE ONE STALL BEFORE.

SO, UM, IT WAS A BIG, IT WAS A BIG EXPENSE.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT, $4.3 MILLION, A LOT OF MONEY.

UM, BUT, UM, I BELIEVE NOW THAT IT'S DONE, IT WAS MONEY WELL

[02:55:01]

SPENT.

IT'LL BE HERE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

AND PLUS NOT TO MENTION THE STAFF ON THE THIRD FLOOR THAT LUG COMPUTERS AND PERIPHERALS UP AND DOWN FOR MANY YEARS EXACTLY.

FROM A SAFETY ISSUE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A GOOD SITUATION THERE.

[20. Closed Session.]

UM, DO WE NEED A CLOSED SESSION? YES, SIR.

I APOLOGIZE.

I WILL NEED YOU BRIEFING THE CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO 1 43 3 11 A FOUR TO DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF A BUSINESS AND PURSUANT TO 1 43 13 11 A SIX TO DISCUSS A PERSONNEL MATTER.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION? SO, SO MOVED.

DO WE HAVE SECOND, HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.