[I. OPENING]
[00:00:11]
EVERYONE TO OUR. TUESDAY, APRIL THE 21ST, 2026 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING. WE'RE VERY HONORED TODAY TO HAVE REVEREND JOHNNY FREEMAN FROM FIRST BAPTIST FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ON FANNIN STREET TO GIVE OUR INVOCATION. AND AFTER THAT, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE PLEDGE TO THE FLAG. AND TODAY, I'M GOING TO ASK COMMISSIONER SCOTT TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE TO THE FLAG. BUT IF REVEREND FREEMAN WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE THE INVOCATION, WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. EVERYONE PLEASE RISE. GREETINGS TO THE COMMISSION AND ALL WHO ARE PRESENT. LET US PRAY. OUR FATHER, OH LORD, OUR LORD. HOW EXCELLENT IS YOUR NAME IN ALL THE EARTH. WE GIVE YOU GLORY, OH LORD, BECAUSE YOU ARE HOLY AND WE BLESS YOUR NAME.
FATHER GOD, WE COME ACKNOWLEDGING YOU AS THE CREATOR GOD, THE CREATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, AND ALL THAT IS WITHIN THEM. LORD GOD, WE COME ACKNOWLEDGING YOU AS THE ONLY WISE, TRUE, AND LIVING GOD. AND WE THANK YOU THAT WE HAVE YOUR WORD THAT YOU NEVER LEAVE US NOR FORSAKE US. SO WE REALIZE THAT YOU ARE PRESENT WITH US IN THIS ASSEMBLY TODAY.
AND BECAUSE YOU ARE PRESENT, OH GOD, WE PRAY FOR AN OUTPOURING OF YOUR DIVINE WISDOM ON THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, THOSE ELECTED AND APPOINTED. WE PRAY GOD, THAT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM WISE COUNSEL IN THE BUSINESS THAT IS AT HAND. LORD GOD, WE PRAY THAT THE DECISIONS, THE THOUGHTS, THE WORDS SPOKEN WILL BE HOLY AND PLEASING IN YOUR SIGHT. FATHER GOD, HELP US TO REALIZE TODAY THAT WE RISE BY LIFTING OTHERS AND WE PRAY, OH GOD, FOR THAT WISDOM TO LIFT THOSE WHO NEED TO BE LIFTED. WE PRAY, FATHER, THAT BEYOND THESE WALLS WE WILL DO THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE CALLED US TO DO, THAT WE WILL LOVE YOU WITH ALL OUR HEARTS, OUR SOULS, OUR MINDS, AND OUR NEIGHBORS AS OURSELVES. FATHER GOD, WE GIVE THIS MEETING OVER TO YOU. LET THERE BE AN OUTPOURING OF YOUR WISE COUNSEL AND LET EVERY DECISION, EVERY WORD SPOKEN, BE HOLY AND ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR SIGHT. FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GATHER TO DO YOUR BUSINESS, AND WE DO SO IN THE POWERFUL, PRICELESS, MATCHLESS, AWESOME NAME OF JESUS, OUR SAVIOR, YOUR SON, OUR REDEEMER, AND OUR FRIEND. LET EVERY HEART SAY AMEN. AMEN.
GRACE. FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. REVEREND FREEMAN, THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRAYER. AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO IN OUR COMMUNITY ALSO. ALRIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE
[III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IN THE MINUTES. FIRST, I WOULD SEEK APPROVAL OF THE FINAL AGENDA.DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED, MR. CHAIR. ALRIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE TROUP COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION, WHICH WAS HELD ON APRIL THE 7TH, 2026. DO I HAVE A MOTION? THEY BE APPROVED. MAKE A MOTION. ALRIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. FINALLY, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM TROUP COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BOARD MEETING, WHICH WAS HELD ON APRIL THE 7TH, 2026. DO I HAVE A MOTION? THEY BE APPROVED. SO MOVED, MR. CHAIR. ALRIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. THAT'S ALL. THOSE IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT.
[IV. Special Business]
THANK YOU. MOTION IS CARRIED. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS SPECIAL BUSINESS. SO AT THIS TIME I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COUNTY MANAGER. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA AS DISCUSSED THIS MORNING IS THE U. S T A GEORGIA FACILITIES GRANT. WE ARE ASKING PERMISSION TO APPLY. THE BUDGET FOR THIS PROJECT IS $8,000 WITH A 50% MATCH OF 4000 THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMMODATED FOR IN THE BUDGET. ALRIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THAT GRANT[00:05:08]
OPPORTUNITY? SO IT'S AN $8,000 GRANT AND THERE'S A 50% MATCH. SO WE'LL PUT IN $4,000. OKAY.ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THEIR REQUEST TO APPLY FOR THE USTA GEORGIA FACILITIES GRANT. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. I HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION IS CARRIED.
ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE. AND I WAS ALSO HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE FEE SCHEDULE AS PRESENTED. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT. IF NOT, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THEIR FEE SCHEDULE. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION. I DO HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION IS CARRIED. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM IS CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST TO PURCHASE CARDIAC MONITORS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS $74,750. FUNDING WILL COME FROM THE EMS FUND. I PREPARED A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THAT, MOVING IT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT. I DID A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO YOU. DID MONEY FROM EMS OR I HAVE ONE PRESENTED TO MOVE IT FROM EMS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THIS EXPENSE. SO DOES THAT NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION? I'M SO EXCITED THAT NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MOTION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT. IF NOT, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PURCHASE THE CARDIAC MONITORS AND TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AMENDMENT, MOVING THE MONEY FROM EMS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION IS CARRIED.
ALL RIGHT. FINAL ITEM UNDER SPECIAL BUSINESS IS CONSIDERATION OF THE ADAMS ROAD CLOSURE. AND I'LL TURN THAT OVER TO YOU, CHAIRMAN. YOU ARE OKAY. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN OUR LAST MEETING. WE HAVE A ROAD, ADAMS ROAD, HERE IN THE COUNTY. WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH CONCERNING A LOT OF TO DO WITH SPEED, RECKLESS DRIVING. AND SO WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH A KIND OF A PROCESS OF TRYING TO LOOK AT WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE, WHAT WE WHAT OUR ABILITIES ARE AS COUNTY GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES DOWN THERE. I FOUND OUT THAT WE KIND OF WENT DOWN THIS ROAD 14 OR SO YEARS AGO. WE TRIED TO GO DOWN THE IDEA OF CLOSING THAT ROAD. AND SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE MOST DIFFICULT ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AS A BOARD. I HAD A LITTLE MAGIC WAND. I JUST WAVE IT AND IT'D ALL BE FIXED AND WE'D ALL BE EVERYBODY WOULD BE HAPPY. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS AS OUR ABILITIES AND ALL. AND SO WE AGAIN, PUT A LOT OF HOURS INTO TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT. WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT. OUR COUNTY ENGINEERING HAS LOOKED AT MANY DIFFERENT OPTIONS, AND WE KNOW THAT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY HAS ALSO BEEN PRETTY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH TRYING TO ENFORCE THE RULES DOWN THERE IN THAT AREA. SO WE FIND OURSELVES TONIGHT WITH, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO DISCUSS WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF ADAMS ROAD. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M HERE NOW TO ASK THE COMMISSIONERS, WE WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHAT THE WHAT THE RESOLVE IS GOING TO BE TO THAT ISSUE. MISTER CHAIR, IF IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'D JUST LIKE TO JUST KIND OF GIVE EVERYBODY HERE THE IDEA, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY WHAT WENT ON TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION THAT WE ORIGINALLY DID. AND WITH THAT, THERE WAS STARTING. IT'S BEEN GOING ON NOW FOR ABOUT 16 YEARS DOWN IN THE GRAY HILL AREA. IT'S AFFECTING GERALD HAUG ROAD, ADAMS ROAD WHERE BARTLEY ROAD AND ALSO SCHUMACHER ROAD. WITH THAT, JUST IN THE TIME I'VE BEEN HERE.
NOW, OF COURSE, WHEN I WORKED FIRE DEPARTMENT YEARS AGO, A FEW YEARS AGO, THEN THERE THERE WAS. WE. WE KNEW THE ACCIDENTS GOING ON. WE KNEW OF THE OF THE SPEEDING, THE DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON THERE. BUT AS I CAME INTO OFFICE, I ACTUALLY MET WITH THE, THE COMMUNITY IN GRAY HILL. WE STARTED ADDRESSING DIFFERENT ISSUES AND THEY WERE TELLING ME ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO IS THAT THE BRIDGE ON ADAMS ROAD HAD WAS DAMAGED BY THE
[00:10:07]
TORNADOES THAT CAME THROUGH THE WEST POINT AREA ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO. SINCE THAT TIME, WE WENT BACK AND STARTED DOING STUDIES. NOW, YEARS AGO, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, JAMESM DID STUDY WHAT WAS THE EARLIEST BACK 2008. SO THAT FAR BACK AND WHAT WE DID IS, IS STARTED REALIZING THAT. AND NOW DURING THAT TIME, LET ME TELL YOU, DURING THE FIRST STUDIES, THE SPEED HAS BEEN REDUCED ON ALL THE ROADS. THERE'S BEEN THREE WAY STOPS PUT IN. LET'S SEE, THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS WHEN I SAY NUMEROUS OVER THOUSANDS OF TICKETS WRITTEN IN THE AREA.ALSO, THERE'S BEEN ACCIDENTS AND STUFF INVOLVED IN THAT, THAT ALL THAT WAS ADDRESSED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WHEN WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS. BUT WHEN WE GOT TO THE POINT, WE STARTED REALIZING THAT WHEN THE BRIDGE WAS CLOSED, THAT THE TRAFFIC WAS THEN SEPARATING GOING GERALD HAUG ROAD. WELL, BARTLEY AND. ALSO ON SCHUMACHER AND I WORKED WITH MAJOR TAYLOR ON THE IDEA OF WHAT ALL WAS GOING ON, TO ENFORCE THAT AT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. AND SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT. BUT WHAT IT DID IS IT FROM THE THREE WAY STOP, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA THERE ON ADAMS ROAD, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SHOEMAKER, THAT PART, THERE WAS NO COMPLAINTS ANYMORE. NATURALLY, IT'S CLOSED OFF. SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT EVEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE SAID, CAN WE JUST CLOSE THAT OFF THERE? NOW, AS FAR AS THAT GOES, THAT DEFINITELY CAUSES A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, NOT ONLY WHAT THE CHAIRMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT ALSO WHEN YOU CUT A ROAD IN HALF, YOU HAVE ADDRESSES ON BOTH SIDES, EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND STUFF TRYING TO RESPOND. BUT WE DID LOOK AT IT AND STARTED TALKING WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. MORE ON THAT, AND TO COME UP WITH AN IDEA OF WHAT, ALONG WITH PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR STEELE, HE, THEY, HE BROUGHT ALL THE AGENCIES TOGETHER FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD. HE BROUGHT THE MARSHALS DEPARTMENT IN NOW AND ONE FIRE AND THEN ALONG WORKING WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO EVERYBODY STUDY THE SITUATION TO SEE WHAT THE BEST OUTCOME WOULD BE. AND THEN WE MET WITH. WE HAD A ONE MEETING. THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT AT GRAY HILL COMMUNITY CENTER. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD A SECOND ONE THAT WAS THERE THAT LETTERS WERE SENT OUT TO PEOPLE ON THAT LIVED ON ADAMS ROAD, GERALD HAUG ROAD, WALDROP ROAD.
THOSE ARE THE THREE. AND WHAT THAT DID, IT WOULD AFFECT THE ACTUAL ACCESS POINT AT 18 AND ADAMS ROAD. AND THE REASON WITH THAT IS IT'S ONE OF THE THE THE THINGS THAT CAME UP. IF WE COULD CLOSE THAT SECTION RIGHT THERE. WHAT THAT DID WAS IT WOULD, IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, GSP AND EVERYBODY ELSE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ENFORCE FOR ROADS, IT WOULD PUSH EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE ONE ROAD, WHICH IS SHOEMAKER ROAD. AT THAT WAY. WE ALSO HAVE TRUCKS THAT WERE GOING UP AND DOWN AND SHOEMAKER AND ALSO UP WARNER ROAD, AND WE HAD TO PUT NO TRUCK SIGNS ON THERE. THE ONLY THING ABOUT SIGN SPEEDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS YOU HAVE TO ENFORCE IT. WORKING WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THAT'S WHERE WE REALIZE THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE ALL FOUR OF THOSE ROADS AT ONE TIME. SO THAT'S WHERE THE RECOMMENDATION CAME. WE HAD OUR OUR NEXT MEETING DOWN AT THE GRAY HILL COMMUNITY CENTER.
THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE SHOWED UP. WE ASKED EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, WE GAVE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS OF WHAT COULD BE DONE THAT NIGHT. IT WAS UNANIMOUS. THERE WAS A FEW THAT THAT SPOKE THAT IF WE DID THAT, WE IF WE CLOSED THE ADAMS ROAD IN 18, COULD THAT REOPEN THE BRIDGE? OF COURSE.
THAT WAS PART OF THE PLAN TO BEGIN WITH. SO SINCE THEN, YOU KNOW, IT HAS BEEN REPAIRED AT THAT POINT. THE OTHER THING WAS, I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY THE HEARING WE HAD HERE. ONE PERSON CUTS TIMBER DOWN THERE ON THE LAND, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET MOVED AROUND AND GO OVER THE BRIDGE ONCE THE BRIDGE. AND THAT WAS ONE PART I DIDN'T MENTION. THIS DOT IS LOOKING TO REDO THAT BRIDGE NOW. ONE REASON IT STAYED CLOSED AMOUNT OF TIME IS THAT THAT SCHEDULE HAS KEPT GETTING MOVED BACK AND BACK. SO NOW WE'VE COME TO THAT TIME THAT I THINK WHEN IS THE ACTUAL TIME, JAMES, THE NEXT SCHEDULED FOR THAT BRIDGE TO BE REPAIRED BEGINNING WITHIN ABOUT A YEAR, ABOUT A YEAR. ALRIGHT. SO THAT LEADS US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW.
AND AT THAT TIME, THE COMMUNITY WAS ABLE TO VOTE DOWN THEIR WHAT WOULD THEY WHICH IN DIFFERENT OPTIONS WERE GIVEN. AND THAT'S WHEN THEY SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE THAT ASPECT. AND KEEP IN MIND, THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AT THAT END OF THE ROAD.
THAT'S WHY WE HAD THEM THERE, BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BE THE ONES THAT PRETTY MUCH WOULD BE THE ONES HAVING TO MAKE THE LITTLE. IT'S ABOUT FIVE MINUTE TRIP BACK AROUND SHOEMAKER ROAD TO GET BACK TO 18. SO THE INCONVENIENCE PART WAS THERE AT THOSE MEETINGS. I DIDN'T HAVE
[00:15:03]
ANYONE SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT. SO THAT'S WHY WE MOVED FORWARD WITH IT. WE HAD TO VOTE ON IT.THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PRESENTED THEIR FINDINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND WE MADE THE CHANGE. AT THAT TIME, WE HAD A DATE TO OPEN THE BRIDGE, BACK UP AND CLOSE THE PART OF ADAMS ROAD. AT THAT TIME, WE STILL HADN'T RECEIVED ANYTHING TO A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE THAT WAS TO COME ABOUT. THAT'S WHEN WE RECEIVED A LETTER FOR POTENTIAL LITIGATION TOWARD THE COUNTY. AND AT THAT POINT, THAT IS NOW WHAT BRINGS US TO TONIGHT. SO I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE JUST WENT OUT THERE AND JUST DECIDED TO DO OVERNIGHT. IT'S BEEN A 16 YEAR VENTURE OF A LOT OF THOUSANDS OF HOURS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT BEING INSTALLED DOWN THERE TO STUDY THE ISSUE. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JUST AS WE HAVE OTHER THINGS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THAT DEVELOPMENT, THAT SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED. THAT'S WHY YOU HEAR US DISCUSS THIS STUFF SO MUCH WHEN THESE OTHERS IS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT ALL WILL BE AFFECTED. BECAUSE ONCE YOU COME BACK AND TRY TO CORRECT IT LATER, IT'S TOUGH TO DO. AND THAT'S WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES TONIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION. IT WASN'T JUST WE WOKE UP ONE MORNING, DECIDED TO CLOSE THIS ROAD. THERE WAS A LOT OF STUDYING AND THINGS THAT WENT INTO IT. SO APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONER. YOU MADE A GOOD, GOOD POINT THERE. BUT ONE POINT DURING THAT NIGHT WHEN THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A MEETING ON THIS PUBLIC ROAD AND IT IS A PUBLIC ROAD, OUR ATTORNEY ADVISED US THEN WHAT COULD BE THE POSSIBILITY, WHAT COULD HAPPEN? IN THAT POSSIBILITY IS SORTED IN REALITY. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. I MEAN, WHAT YOU SAID WAS RIGHT, EXCEPT IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD. AND IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, IT'S HARD TO CLOSE A PUBLIC ROAD. YOU CAN ABANDON A ROAD, BUT IT'S HARD TO CLOSE A PUBLIC ROAD. YEAH.
JUST TO KIND OF DISTINGUISH, THERE'S TWO STEPS YOU CAN GO. YOU TALK ABOUT CLOSING A ROAD, YOU ARE CLOSING A PUBLIC ROAD. AND SO IF YOU CLOSE IT, YOU'RE SHUTTING THAT ROAD OFF. THE OTHER PROCESS IS, IS A ABANDONMENT AND ABANDONMENT. GENERALLY, WHAT YOU DO IS YOU DETERMINE THAT A SECTION OF ROAD IS NO LONGER NEEDED FOR THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST. AND THEN YOU GO TO ALL THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS AND YOU ASK THEM, DO THEY WANT TO ACCEPT THE ROAD? AND THE PROBLEM WHEN THEY ACCEPT THE ROAD IS THEY OWN THE ROAD AT THAT POINT, AND THEY ARE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIRS, THE MAINTENANCE, SIGNAGE, LITTER, WHATEVER. AND SO THAT THAT'S REALLY MORE WHERE THE COUNTY. THERE WE GO AGAIN. THAT'S JUST IT'S NOT A FIRE ALARM. LET ME BUT THAT'S WHERE WE FIND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CLOSE THE ROAD. WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT ABANDONING THE ROAD. AND AS IT WAS POINTED OUT, OUR ATTORNEY DID GIVE US THE LIABILITIES THAT WE HAVE OF DOING DOING OF CLOSING THAT ROAD. ONE OF THE THINGS, TOO, THAT YOU JUST DON'T THINK ABOUT AS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN ATLANTA, WHERE A YOUNG MAN RAN OFF THE ROAD AND HIT SOMETHING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT THE COUNTY HAD PLACED THERE. WELL, THEY GOT A $30 MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE THAT CITY OF MILTON, GEORGIA. IT WHEN IT IT WAS WENT INTO LOTS OF LEVELS OF LITIGATION. THE COST TO THE COUNTY THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE RANGE TO DEFEND THE CASE LIKE THIS. WE'RE TALKING SIX FIGURES. SO IT IT THERE'S A LOT OF FINANCIAL RISK TO DO IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND, AND AGAIN, THAT'S STUFF THAT WE HAVE TO WEIGH OUT THERE. AND SO WE AND OVERRIDING PRINCIPLES, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER A PUBLIC ROAD IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC. AND IT COULD BE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY SOMEBODY LIVES JUST IN THAT AREA. IT COULD BE SOMEBODY TRAVELING ACROSS THE COUNTY THAT GOES DOWN THE ROAD.
IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD. THE CITIZENS PAID FOR THAT ROAD. SO AGAIN, WE WE'VE TAKEN A LOT OF THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK. OUR PEOPLE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK TO TO TRY TO WRITE TICKETS. THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE GEORGIA STATE PATROL, WE'VE TRIED TO COME UP WITH IDEAS OF THINGS TO DO TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN TO TO STOP THESE PEOPLE.
AND SO IT GETS KIND OF LIMITED AS TO WHAT YOU CAN DO BECAUSE IT HAS TO MEET CERTAIN STANDARDS. AND SO, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A REALLY, REALLY GOOD COUNTY ENGINEER TO HELP GUIDE US THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. SO. HERE WE ARE. WE'VE GOT THE ROAD AND THE BRIDGE. I THINK THE BRIDGE IS NOW REPAIRED. THE STATE FINALLY
[00:20:05]
GOT THEIR REPAIRS DONE TO THE BRIDGE. SO I'M AT A POINT TO YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH, HE MIGHT HAVE ONE. WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE CLOSING ONE END OF THE ROAD, EVERYBODY STILL HAS ACCESS TO IT. THIS WAS THE THIS. THE ONLY REASON FOR THIS WAS TO CUT DOWN ON THE FLOW THROUGH TRAFFIC, BECAUSE WE HAD LETTERS FROM THE SHERIFF, WE HAD ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAD, EVEN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. THE LETTER SAID IT HAD DONE ALL HE COULD DO. WE VOTED THAT NIGHT TO CLOSE THE ROAD. I VOTED FOR IT AND I WILL. WE EVEN HAD VIDEOS OF CARS RUNNING PAST SCHOOL BUSSES FOR KIDS TRYING TO GET ON. I WILL ALWAYS PUT SAFETY BEFORE INCONVENIENCE ANY DAY AND THAT'S WHY I VOTED. I HAD MY TWO PIECES. WELL, I NOTICED A VERY TOUCHY TOPIC. WE GO BACK 16 YEARS. I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE NOW GOING INTO MY FIFTH YEAR, AND WHEN I TOOK MY VOTE A FEW WEEKS BACK, I WAS LOOKING AT A MORAL OBLIGATION BECAUSE I HAD A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE WHO SAID THEY WERE IMPACTED, YOU KNOW, BY THE TRAFFIC. AND IT WAS AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE FOR ME, GIVEN THAT SO MANY PEOPLE CAME FORWARD THAT NIGHT SAYING THAT THEIR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN OVERTAKEN BY, YOU KNOW, HIGH TRAFFIC ZONES, PEOPLE THROWING TRASH INTO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. EVEN THOUGH OUR ATTORNEY HAD INDICATED THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND WE MUST FOLLOW PROTOCOL, WE MUST ALSO FOLLOW ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO DO THIS AND DO IT IN THE RIGHT WAY. AFTER HAVING FOLLOW UP EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, I FOUND OUT WE DID NOT DO IT THE APPROPRIATE WAY. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TONIGHT, AND I'M PREPARED TO VOTE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO WRITE THAT DECISION FROM LAST, FROM FROM THREE WEEKS AGO. OKAY. LET ME ASSURE EVERYONE, NO MATTER HOW THE VOTE GOES TONIGHT, WE ARE STILL DEDICATED TO DOING WHATEVER WE CAN TO TRY TO DO TO RESOLVE THE TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, AND WE WE ARE COMMITTED TO TRYING TO DO THAT. AGAIN, IT'S JUST WE HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF TOOLS THAT WE CAN DO. AND I THINK EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM UNDERSTANDS LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY GO DOWN THERE, THEY SET A CAR, THEY KICKED 4 OR 5 PEOPLE.THEY LEAVE. WHAT HAPPENS THE NEXT FEW HOURS? EVERYBODY GOES BACK TO SPEEDING AGAIN, RIGHT? CAR IS GONE. NOBODY'S THERE. THEY LET EVERYBODY KNOW IT'S OKAY. AND AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS. SO, I MEAN, AND UNFORTUNATELY YOU CAN'T HAVE AN OFFICER THERE 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, JUST JUST TO PATROL A CERTAIN AREA. SO CERTAINLY THE CITIZENS COULD DO A GOOD PART TO HELP US SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. AND FOR THE FOLKS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA AND THAT TRAVEL DOWN THERE, I WILL SAY THAT WE ARE STILL COMMITTED TO TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO TO RESOLVE THIS SAFETY ISSUE. SO WITH THAT SAID, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AS TO ADAMS ROAD, WHICH I THINK WOULD AT THE SAME TIME INCLUDE THE BRIDGE IF, SINCE IT IS REPAIRED AND AVAILABLE, SINCE THE STATE IS FINALLY SIGNED OFF ON IT. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE KEEP ADAMS ROAD OPEN AND OPEN THE BRIDGE. ALL RIGHT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. SO. WHY? WHY WHEN I CLICK MY VOTE, NOT SHOWING. YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO VOTE, BUT I CAN RESTART THE VOTE SO THAT YOU CAN VOTE NOW. OKAY. SO. ALL RIGHT, IF YOU'LL DO THAT, PLEASE. SO LET ME PUT THAT MOTION AND SECOND. AND LET ME SAY REAL QUICK, I DIDN'T PREPARE TO MAKE SPEECH THIS, BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT LOOKING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL THE CITIZENS OF TROUP COUNTY, I CANNOT TAKE THE RISK OF HAVING A $30 MILLION LAWSUIT AGAINST AGAINST OUR CITIZENS, THAT THAT WOULD BE A HUGE FINANCIAL RISK. WHILE I WANT THE PROBLEM SOLVED, AND I'M COMMITTED TO WORK WITH OUR STAFF TO CONTINUE, IT WOULD BE TOO HUGE A RISK TO PUT ON THIS ALL THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTY. SO. LET ME START OVER. YEAH, WE GOTTA START OVER. YEAH, WE GOTTA START OVER. ALL RIGHT, SO YOU MAKE THE MOTION. YOU MADE THE MOTION. YOU MADE THE MOTION, I SECONDED. I DON'T
[00:25:03]
HAVE IT ON MY BOARD.OKAY, I SEE IT. OKAY. YOU GOT IT? YEAH. OKAY. WITH THAT MOTION IS APPROVED NOW. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND
[V. Public Hearings]
PARTICIPATING. ALRIGHT. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. ALRIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE COME OUT OF OUR REGULAR MEETING AND GO INTO PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALRIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. SO WHO? RUTH. GOOD EVENING. THE STAFF HAD BROUGHT BEFORE YOU ON APRIL 7TH. THE AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13, WHICH IS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND TOWERS. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THIS IS THE SECOND READING AND IT IS VOTE ELIGIBLE. OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, WE ALLOW ANYONE TO COME UP AND SPEAK WHETHER THEY'RE FOR OR AGAINST. SO I WILL OPEN UP THE FLOOR. IF ANYONE IS AGAINST THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT THAT IS REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND TOWERS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD. ALRIGHT. HEARING NONE, IF ANYONE'S FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. OKAY, HEARING NONE, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE, FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS. WELL, LET ME BACK UP. THIS IS THE FIRST READING. I'M SORRY. SO IT IS VOTE ELIGIBLE. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. CONSIDER CONSIDERING THE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND TOWERS. SECOND SECOND READING. SECOND READING. IT SAYS IT SAYS FIRST ON MY SCRIPT. IT DOES SAY FIRST, BUT IT'S A SECOND THAT WE DISCUSSED. THAT'S RIGHT. SO IT IS THE SECOND READING. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND TOWERS. SO MOVED. RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT.THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS TO APPENDIX B, WHICH IS THE LAND USE AND ZONING. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WE HAD IN THERE THAT WE ADDED WAS THE CENTRAL SEWER SYSTEM. WE REDEFINED IT AS IT WAS. IT WAS IN THE DEFINITION, BUT WE WERE DEFINED IT. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE. THIS IS THE SECOND READING AND IT IS VOTE ELIGIBLE. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, AGAIN, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. SO IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORTH, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. HEARING NONE, IF YOU'RE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. SO HEARING NONE, THIS IS THE SECOND READING. IT IS VOTE ELIGIBLE. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UDA. I'LL MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST. FOR BOTH OF THE NEXT TWO ITEMS. MAYBE. THERE ARE UNDOUBTEDLY GOING TO NOT. UNDOUBTEDLY THERE'S POSSIBILITY THERE'S STILL SOME TYPOS IN THE ORDINANCE. SO IF MOTION COULD BE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AND SUBSEQUENT SUBSECTION, SUBJECT TO REVIEWING IT FOR TYPOS AND NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY GETS SENT TO MUNICODE. OKAY. YEAH. EXCELLENT OBSERVATION BECAUSE I SEE SOME TYPOS. OKAY, OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, SUBJECT TO A REVIEW FOR ANY GRAMMATICAL TYPO.
NON-SUBSTANTIVE. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A SECOND.
SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION IS CARRIED. GOOD
[00:30:10]
AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON. BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS MEETING, THE STAFF HAS MADE A FEW CHANGES TO THE DATA CENTER ORDINANCE. MOST NOTABLE ONES WERE WE REMOVED THE DECENTRALIZED SEWER SYSTEM FROM THIS ORDINANCE AND PLACED IT PUBLIC SEWER ONLY. THE SECOND MOST NOTABLE ONE WOULD BE THAT INSTEAD OF 1500 FEET FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FOR SETBACKS, IT IS NOW 1500 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF A SENSITIVE RECEPTOR. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THOSE TWO CHANGES, OR ANYTHING ELSE TO DO WITH THIS ORDINANCE AT 1500 FEET MEANS EVERYTHING'S GOT TO BE INSIDE THAT 1500 FOOT. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE 1500 FOOT SETBACK IS DUE IS WITH THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN THIS ORDINANCE.CURRENTLY, WE HAVE A 300 FOOT SETBACK FOR ANY RETENTION OR DETENTION PONDS AND UTILITY SUBSTATIONS. ALL THAT GOES BEYOND THE 1500 FOOT. CORRECT? AND WE STILL HAVE IT'S GOTTA BE ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, CORRECT. AVERAGE AND HYPERSCALE FACILITIES NEED TO BE ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL LIGHT OR SMALL SCALE ONES ARE ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AND WE HAVE HALF AN ACRE ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL RIGHT NOW. CURRENTLY, THE ONLY PARCEL LOCATED WITHIN UNINCORPORATED TROUP COUNTY IS HALF AN ACRE FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. WHAT IS THE ORDINANCE SAY ABOUT SPOT ZONING? OUR ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR SPOT ZONING. BUT IF A DATA CENTER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, WHEN YOU GET THERE TO VOTE, YOU'RE REDOING THE REZONING. SO WHEN IT COMES TO REZONING, THEY WANT TO REZONE IT FOR HEAVY DUTY, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. SO IF THEY DO IT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHETHER THEY MOVE FORWARD OR THEY CAN DENY IT THEN. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. DID IT GO TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT? CORRECT. ALL FACILITIES REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS USE HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR SPECIAL. SO, AUSTIN, WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WILL THERE BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY WITH THAT? WHAT'S THAT. A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY AS IN AS IN MAKING SURE THEY DO NOT BECOME A NUISANCE TO THE COMMUNITY OR ANY KIND OF COMPLAINTS THAT COME ABOUT. SO WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF OUR STANDARDS OF THIS ORDINANCE. YOU CAN ALSO PUT CONDITIONS ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS WELL. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY TO THAT. AND THEN THE ORDINANCE STILL HAS TO DECOMMISSION. AND DECOMMISSION IS BONDED, RIGHT? CORRECT.
DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS IS STILL IN THIS ORDINANCE IN THE FORM OF SURETY BOND. AND THAT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. CORRECT. I WILL PROVIDE MY NOTES TO YOU. AND I COLLECTED PROBABLY OVER 100 RECOMMENDATIONS. SO WHAT I DID I WENT THROUGH AND IF THEY WERE DUPLICATE, DUPLICATE IT, I CHANGED THEM JUST TOOK THEM OUT. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS SO I WON'T READ IT ALL TONIGHT, BUT IT'S FOUR AREAS THAT I THINK WERE WAS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT A DATA CENTER. ONE WAS NOISE AND POLLUTION CONTROL, AND THAT SHOULD BE IN THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY. NUMBER TWO IS A DISASTER PLAN. THAT'S A CONCERNS AROUND IF THE FACILITY, YOU KNOW, HAS SOME TYPE OF DISASTER, HOW ARE WE GOING TO RESPOND TO IT? COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. NOT SURE THAT I SAW THAT THROUGH THE THE POLICY ITSELF, BUT MANY PEOPLE WANTED SOMETHING THAT MAINTAINED PUBLIC CONTACT. HAVING SOMEONE THEY CAN COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY TO. NUMBER FOUR IS ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACT. IT WAS QUITE A BIT FOR THIS ONE, BUT I NARROWED IT DOWN TO TO SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITIES AND CONTRIBUTE TO LONG TERM ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE COUNTY. AND SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME HERE, THEY NEED TO BE GOOD PARTNERS. AND I'LL LEAVE THIS FOR YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF BOSTON? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS TO COME AND SPEAK THOSE FOR AND THOSE AGAINST. AND LET ME SAY THIS BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THAT PART, YOU KNOW, I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND I LOVE TO MONITOR SOCIAL MEDIA, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL IT. A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ARE VOTING TONIGHT ON A DATA CENTER. PLEASE UNDERSTAND. SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS. WE ARE NOT VOTING ON A DATA CENTER. WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW OF WRITING OUR RULES, OUR ORDINANCES FOR DATA CENTERS.
IT COULD BE ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT MIGHT BE COMING TO LAGRANGE, BUT WE'RE WE'RE JUST
[00:35:03]
TRYING TO GET OUR ORDINANCES IN PLACE BEFORE WE GET AN APPLICATION. LET ME STRESS AGAIN, THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS IN TROUP COUNTY FOR A DATA CENTER. ALL RIGHT.EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS WELL AWARE THAT THERE'S ONE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF LAGRANGE. NO DENYING THAT FACT, BUT THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS INSIDE. I MEAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THIS COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT. PEOPLE SAY YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO THE CITIZENS. NOT TRUE. WE GOT MEMBERS OF THE ANTI DATA GROUP. WE'VE LISTENED TO PEOPLE, WE'VE ALL LISTENED TO PEOPLE. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HELPED FORM THE POLICIES THAT WE'RE THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT. SO WE ARE LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC. I TOLD TWO WEEKS AGO IN OUR LAST MEETING, I'M NOT GETTING A KICKBACK. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT ANY OF THEM ARE GETTING KICKED BACK BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T OFFERED ME ANY. OKAY, SO THERE'S NO NOTHING IN THIS FOR US EXCEPT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TONIGHT IS CREATE THOSE ORDINANCES THAT PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY. AND WE'VE LISTENED TO THE CITY'S, I MEAN, TO THE CITIZENS, AND WE HAVE SOME OF THE STRONGEST ORDINANCES AROUND, AM I RIGHT? WE ARE. WE WON'T HAVE EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY WANTS, BUT WE HAVE THE STRONGEST ORDINANCES AROUND. AND SO I WANT Y'ALL TO KNOW THAT IF AN APPLICATION COMES, HOW WE KIND OF PROTECT OURSELVES IS THROUGH OUR ORDINANCES, THROUGH THE RULES OF ZONING PROPERTIES. AND NOW I FORGOT AND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO ANY APPLICATION THAT COMES INTO THE COMMUNITY WILL HAVE TO GO. THE PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO BE ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. THERE WOULD THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WE JUST HEARD AUSTIN KIND OF EXPLAIN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THINGS THAT WE COULD DO. AND SO THOSE ARE. AND OUR OR DID I SAY ORDINANCES? THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE IN IN PLACE TO PROTECT OURSELVES. OKAY, SO I WANT TO PLEASE, I WANT IT TO BE NOTED THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CITIZENS, WE HAVE WORKED WITH OUR LAWYERS, WE HAVE WORKED WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE HAD THESE OR ISSUES TO TRY TO COME UP AND CRAFT THE BEST POSSIBLE ORDINANCES WE CAN. WE CANNOT PREVENT ONE FROM COMING AND MAKING APPLICATION. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AMERICA. THEY CAN DO THAT. SO WHAT DO WE DO? WE FALL BACK ON OUR ORDINANCES AND ZONING AND OUR AND ALL SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THAT'S HOW WE DO IT.
SO TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. SO ANYONE DOESN'T THINK THAT WE'RE VOTING ON ONE TONIGHT. NOW I'M GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR AND LET ME SAY THIS REAL QUICK. WE HAD A LONG MEETING LAST TIME, LONG MEETING. SO I DIDN'T KEEP EVERYBODY TO THEIR THREE MINUTES BECAUSE WE LET EVERYBODY AIR OUT ALL THE THINGS TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD. BUT TONIGHT I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES. I HAVE A TIMER AND BASICALLY IF THERE'S ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE, WE LISTEN TOOK NOTES OF EVERYTHING IN THE LAST MEETING. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE FOR OR AGAINST, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TONIGHT. AND IF YOU GO MORE THAN THREE MINUTES, I'LL WAVE MY HAND.
OKAY, BUT WE WANT TO KEEP THIS VERY CORDIAL AND AND GENTLE, ALWAYS RESPECTFUL. SO MAKE SURE I KNOW HOW TO WORK THE TIMER. I DON'T DO THIS VERY MUCH. SO GET MY TIMER UP. AND IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORTH AND SPEAK FOR THE ORDINANCE, YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO THAT. AND ALL WE ASK IS FOR YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SO ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR. ALRIGHT. HEARING NONE, IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORTH. HI, GUYS. HELLO. CINDY HUTCHINGS, 912 SOUTH WILLOW CREST WAY. SO I DO REALLY APPRECIATE WHERE WE'RE AT. I THINK WE'RE AT A REALLY GOOD PLACE. HOWEVER I DO THE REASON I'M SPEAKING AGAINST IS BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE WE CAN GO A BIT FURTHER AND DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY SAW THE ARTICLES TODAY, BUT GOOGLE FINALLY DID THEIR PRESS RELEASE. THEY FINALLY ANNOUNCED THAT, YES, THEY'RE ACTUALLY HERE IN TOWN, AND THEY'RE SO PROUD OF THE $1 MILLION THAT THEY'RE GIVING GROUNDSWELL. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT THEY'RE SO PROUD OF IT. AND YOU KNOW WHY THEY'RE SO PROUD OF IT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A GREAT DEAL FOR THEM. SEE, THE ONE THAT THEY BUILT IN ARKANSAS, THEY'RE BUILDING IT RIGHT NOW. THEY GAVE AWAY $25 MILLION IN COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENTS THERE. AND IN
[00:40:01]
LAGRANGE, THEY'RE GETTING AWAY WITH ONLY GIVING AWAY $1 MILLION. SO AS TO WHAT DOCTOR MCKINNEY WAS SAYING. YES, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS IN OUR ORDINANCES. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE SIGNED CONTRACTS BEFORE THEY EVEN START BUILDING. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING WHAT WE DESERVE OUT OF THESE PROJECTS.SO ALSO, OUR SCHOOLS GAVE UP A $200 MILLION PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT. THERE'S NO REASON WHY THAT SHOULD EVER BE DONE. SO I WOULD LOVE TO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT CAN BE DONE IN THE ORDINANCES, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCES THAT THESE PROJECTS DO NOT GET A TAX ABATEMENT. IT'S A GOOD THING IT'S GOOGLE THAT'S COMING HERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE OUR CITY OFFICIALS COULD ACTUALLY GOOGLE SOME STUFF AND, YOU KNOW, HELP THEM MAKE DECISIONS IN THE FUTURE. NOT YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT THE CITY. BUT ANYWAY, THIS LEAVES US WITH THE COUNTY. TROUP COUNTY WITH A GREAT DEAL OF POTENTIAL LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT, WILL CONTINUE TO BE TARGETED BY DATA CENTERS AND CRYPTO MINES FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. OUR COMMISSIONERS NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP THESE OUT AND PROTECT US FROM THE NOISE, AIR AND WATER POLLUTION, AS WELL AS THE RISING POWER BILLS THAT COME WITH THEM. WE KEEP HEARING THAT WE CAN'T OUTRIGHT BAN THEM BECAUSE WE COULD BE SUED. WELL, CRYPTO HAS BEEN BANNED OUTRIGHT IN FANNIN COUNTY, GILMER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF HIAWASSEE. AND I'VE SENT INFORMATION TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THAT. AS FOR DATA CENTERS, THE CITY OF ATLANTA HAS BANNED THEM COMPLETELY WITHIN THE BELTLINE SO IT CAN BE DONE. SO AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING I READ FROM OUR UDO AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW ALL OF THAT INSIDE AND OUT, WHICH OUTLINES THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE COUNTY FOLLOWS ITS OWN PLAN. IN A DOCUMENT I RECEIVED FROM MY FRIEND AT THE NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST CRYPTO MINING, WHICH WAS RESEARCHED AND DRAFTED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CAN BAN THINGS UNDER HOME RULE, WHICH GIVES STATUTORY PERMISSION TO THE COUNTIES. COUNTIES CAN ADOPT ORDINANCES TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY, SO LONG AS IT'S NOT PREEMPTED BY THE STATE. THERE IS A SUPREME COURT CASE THAT SHOWS THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN. IT'S NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED, NEVER BEEN PREEMPTED. THAT WAS AMBLER REALTY VERSUS THE VILLAGE OF EUCLID. MOST SIGNIFICANT CASE REGARDING ZONING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. ZONING AND PUBLIC HEALTH EVOLVED FROM THE COMMON LAW OF PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THE EXPANSION OF STATE'S POWERS OF ZONING. SO BASED ON THIS, I POSIT THAT CRYPTO MINING CAN BE BANNED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO SUPPORT THE GOALS AS SET FORTH IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO I HAVE TWO IDEAS. I'M TIME'S UP. SEEING IF YOU CAN MAKE IT REAL QUICK. OKAY, TWO IDEAS QUICKLY. ONE IS I SUGGEST WE REMOVE DATA CENTERS AND CRYPTO MINES FROM THE UDO ALTOGETHER. PROBLEM SOLVED. IF YOU HAVE TO ADD THEM TO THE UDO FOR THEM TO COME IN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT MAKES SENSE THAT IF YOU REMOVE THEM, THEY CAN NO LONGER COME IN. NUMBER TWO, WHO LIKES TO VOTE? I LOVE TO VOTE. IT'S REALLY EMPOWERING. SO I FOUND THAT IF A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VOTES TO APPROVE A REFERENDUM, WE COULD PLACE THE ISSUE ON THE BALLOT IN A IN A SPECIAL ELECTION. AND THAT WAY, THE PEOPLE OF TROUP COUNTY COULD GET TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? HEY, HOW YOU DOING? NATHAN GASKIN, 1005 TROUP STREET. I JUST HAVE A AN OBSERVATION, AND I WAS HOPING THAT SOMEBODY COULD HELP ME IN YOUR UDO, YOU DESCRIBE IT AS PUBLIC SEWAGE. IS THERE A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SEWAGE ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY? AND THE REASON WHY I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF SEWAGE. THERE IS SEWAGE THAT HAS TO BE TREATED, SUCH AS IN A SEPTIC TANK. THIS IS IN THE COUNTY. AND THEN THERE IS GRAY WATER SEWAGE. NOW, IF YOU LEAVE IT OPEN TO SEWAGE, PUBLIC SEWAGE, YOU'RE NOT DISTINGUISHING ONE FROM THE OTHER. SO TECHNICALLY, IF WATER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY FECAL MATTER AND MAY CONTAIN A FEW CAUSTIC AGENTS, NOTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE MITIGATED IN A SEPTIC TANK. TECHNICALLY, SOMEONE COULD HAVE A HUGE FACILITY AND DUMP WATER IN THE GROUND UNTREATED, ACCORDING TO YOUR SPECIAL ORDINANCE. NOW, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM THE CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVERKEEPERS HERE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND EVERYONE KEEPS WANT TO KEEP THE ENVIRONMENT SAFE, BUT WORDS MATTER AND IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION COMING FROM NATHAN GASKIN, WHO'S RUNNING FOR THE COUNTY CHAIR. WORDS MATTER. SO
[00:45:05]
IF WE COULD CLEAN THAT UP, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE TO THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT AS TO HOW WE MOVE FORWARD IN KEEPING OUR WATERWAYS SAFE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO CALL UP AUSTIN TO KIND OF ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. SO OKAY. EARLIER IN THIS MEETING, WE APPROVED, OR I SHOULD SAY YOU GUYS APPROVED A SET OF UDO TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGES. AND THAT SET OF CHANGES. WE CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS FOR SEWAGE SYSTEM CENTRAL, WHICH IS CURRENTLY USED IN OUR DATA CENTER ORDINANCE. THAT IS WHAT PUBLIC WHAT WE DEFINE AS PUBLIC SEWER.AND I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND READ THE DEFINITION AND SAY PUBLICLY OWNED SEWAGE COLLECTION TREATMENT SYSTEM THAT CONVEYS WASTEWATER FROM ONE OR MORE LOTS, BUILDINGS OR USES THROUGH A NETWORK OF PIPES TO A CENTRAL FACILITY WHERE SUCH WASTEWATER IS TREATED AND THEN DISCHARGED, REUSED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. I THINK THAT DEFINES IT. IT WOULD GO TO A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT CENTER, RIGHT, IF PUBLICLY OWNED. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY? IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME FORTH. ALRIGHT. HEARING NONE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR THOSE THAT CAME AND GAVE YOUR INPUT. AND PLEASE KNOW THAT WE HAVE WORKED LONG AND HARD AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF ALL OUR STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE IN PREPARING THIS. THERE WASN'T ONE THAT WE COULD JUST RUN OUT SOMEWHERE AND GET ONE BY ONE, HAVE AMAZON DELIVER IT. WE CREATED THIS THING AND WE HAVE SHARED IT WITH OTHER COUNTIES. THAT'S ME. SORRY. THERE WE GO. SO WE WE KIND OF CREATED THIS THING FROM SCRATCH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. AND I GIVE A LOT OF CREDIT TO THE TO THE PEOPLE FROM THE ANTI DATA CENTER GROUP THAT GAVE INPUT TO ALL OF OUR STAFF AND THE CITIZENS TOO. WE WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS AGAIN, IS A LIVING DOCUMENT. IT CAN BE ADDRESSED DOWN THE ROAD. SO IT IS NOT SET IN STONE. WE WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES. SO AGAIN, THANK THANKS TO EVERYONE. SO THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THIS. IT IS VOTE ELIGIBLE. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. ALISON, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW, BUT IN ALL YOUR RESEARCH THROUGHOUT THE STATE, THE OTHER COUNTIES, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TONIGHT RIGHT HERE, HOW STRICT IS IT COMPARED TO OTHERS? IT IS ONE OF THE MOST STRICT IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, IF NOT THE STRICT, THE MOST STRICT COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTIES. I KNOW, I KNOW WHEN WE, ME AND YOU WERE TALKING ONE ON ONE WHEN IT FIRST STARTED, I KNOW I WAS WAY UP HERE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, WE STARTED FROM THE BOTTOM. AND, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE KIND OF MET IN THE MIDDLE NOW. DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS IS THE BEST SCENARIO AND PROTECTION FOR THE CITIZENS OF TROUP COUNTY? I FEEL THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS THE THE STRONGEST ORDINANCE WE CAN HAVE FOR WHAT THE BOARD IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. YEAH. AND EVERYTHING'S BEEN LOOKED OVER BY MARK, THE LAWYER, AS FAR AS WORDING. AND WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND OUR EARLIEST I GUESS OUR LAST MEETING WAS TUESDAY OF LAST WEEK. WE DISCUSSED A FEW CHANGES ON THERE. THE CHANGES WERE THEN SENT TO THE SENT TO MARK, AND WE RECEIVED INFORMATION BACK FROM HIM WHICH WE PLACED IN THIS ORDINANCE. LET ME JUST JUST SAY. MY OFFICE. I'LL LEARN ONE DAY I WILL. FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, WHAT WE DO, WE DON'T OBVIOUSLY, OUR OFFICE, WE DON'T MAKE POLICY DECISIONS IN TERMS OF THE POLICY. BUT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IT'S BEEN REVIEWED. AND WHILE NO. AS WE TALKED BRIEFLY THIS MORNING, WHILE NO ORDINANCE IS LITIGATION PROOF THAT JUST DOESN'T EXIST, THIS IS A REASONABLE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BALANCE THE THE LEGAL REALITIES AND RISKS VERSUS WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO ACCOMPLISH. NOW, I KNOW THIS MORNING WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE OKAY IF WE MOVE EVERYTHING INSIDE THAT OUTSIDE THAT 1500 FOOT. WELL, IT AGAIN, IF YOU MOVE EVERYTHING, IF WHENEVER YOU YOU MOVE TO MAKE THINGS MORE RESTRICTIVE, IT
[00:50:04]
INCREASES THE OPPORTUNITY. IT GENERATES ANOTHER POTENTIAL ARGUMENT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT. IT JUST DOES. IS IT DEFENSIBLE? WELL, IF IF IT WERE LITIGATED, WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IS THE COURT WOULD LOOK AT A RETREATING SIMILAR KINDS OF INTENSIVE USES. SIMILARLY.SIMILARLY, IS THERE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE DECISION? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR THE DECISION? SO THOSE THAT WOULD BE A RECORD THAT WOULD BE GENERATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS THAT THAT IS HARD TO TO PREDICT UNTIL YOU GET AN ACTUAL. AS THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT, THERE IS NO APPLICATION, THERE IS NO PROPOSAL TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE ALL THOSE THINGS. SO I. THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY I CAN ANSWER IT. AND YOU'VE. YOU'VE ALSO HAD ANOTHER COUNTY THAT CALLED AND WANTED TO PERMISSION TO COPY WHAT WE HAVE SO FAR. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. BUT IN THOSE RIGHT THERE, ANY OF THE OTHER COUNTIES IS ANYTHING. AND I GUESS THIS JUST GOES BACK TO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THIS MIGHT BE GOING. WE TALKED ABOUT IT THIS MORNING IS 300FT. THAT'S FOR ANY RETENTION POND, SUBSTATION, ANYTHING IS ALL THEY HAVE TO BE OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE 300FT. IS THAT THE WAY THIS READS? CORRECT. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND OTHER BUILDINGS IN ORDER FOR THE DATA CENTER ITSELF IS THE 1500 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THEN EVERYTHING TO DO WITH UTILITY SUBSTATIONS, RETENTION, DETENTION, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. AS FAR AS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS 300FT AS AS OF NOW, WITH THE STACKED VEGETATIVE BUFFER. CORRECT. THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE 300 FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER THAT YOU WILL FIND ON PAGE NINE, I BELIEVE. I THINK THAT JUST CONTINUES TO BE THE BIGGEST CONCERN FOR ME IS JUST, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WITH WILLS, THINGS LIKE THAT, 300FT, GETTING THAT CLOSE WITH RETENTION PONDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IS JUST THAT'S CONCERNING FOR ME. IF THAT COMES, I MEAN, IF THEY APPLIED FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WOULD THAT GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION OF THE SITE PLAN AND WHERE THEY ARE LIKE, LIKE PUTTING A CONDITION, YOU COULD PUT A CONDITION. COULD WE PUT THE CHAIRMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT IF THEY CAME FOR A SPECIAL USE, SAY, IF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DID APPROVE IT, THERE'D BE SPOT ZONING IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, TROUP COUNTY, TO START WITH. RIGHT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS. EXACTLY.
SO, SO THEY WENT THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS AND HAD A SPOT ZONING TO DO THIS. THEN LIKE THE CHAIRMAN JUST SAID, IF YOU HAD A SPECIAL USE, COULD YOU CHANGE THIS AND PUT SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON TOP OF THAT? YOU CAN USE CONDITIONS ON A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. YES. OKAY. OKAY.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. THAT'S TRICKY. YEAH. THAT OPENS UP AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCRIMINATE. YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF WHEN YOU HAVE THAT'S VERY TRICKY. AND THEN YOU WANT TO PUT A CONDITION ON THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT STANDARD. BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT. BUT THIS BUT THIS WOULD BE A SPECIAL USE. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. TROUP COUNTY, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS STILL GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERY APPLICANT. WE WON'T MAKE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR EACH APPLICANT. I THINK THAT WOULD CREATE A PROBLEM THAT THAT WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR US AS A COUNTY. SO. WELL, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE COMMISSION BOARD TO START WITH TO APPROVE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THAT. YEAH, NO, THAT'S DIFFERENT. BUT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, I WOULD KEEP THAT THE SAME FOR EVERY APPLICANT. OKAY. I WOULDN'T THAT'S THE TRICK OF IT. YOU GOTTA YOU GOTTA STAY REASONABLE AS FAR AS STATE LAW AND ZONING, YOU GOTTA STAY WITHIN REASON. SO WE CAN'T GO AND DO SOMETHING UNREASONABLE ON THE FRONT END.
SO WE IT'S A TRAP. EITHER WAY, WE COULD. BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU WOULD BE BECAUSE WE'D BE SPOT ZONING. WELL, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE THE POWER TO TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT.
ARE WE GOING TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? RIGHT. SO WE HAVE THAT ON THE FRONT END THAT WE WOULD BE JUST NOT APPROVING IT BECAUSE OF SPOT ZONING. THERE YOU GO. THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS TONIGHT. YES, AS FAR AS I KNOW. WELL, LET ME THAT'S A GOOD POINT. LET ME WHAT FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, WHAT I THINK THE OPTIONS ARE, THE MORATORIUM IS IN PLACE THROUGH JUNE THE 14TH. TONIGHT, THERE ARE THREE BASIC MAYBE FOUR, BUT CERTAINLY MINIMUM THREE OPTIONS.
YOU COULD APPROVE IT LIKE IT WAS DONE WITH THE PRIOR ORDINANCE WITH JUST FIXING NON-SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES. YOU COULD TABLE IT OR YOU COULD CONTINUE IT. THE DIFFERENCE IS
[00:55:04]
IF YOU TABLE IT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE ARE THROUGH WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, AND WE'RE JUST TABLING IT TO MAKE OUR DECISION BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO DATE. IF YOU CONTINUE IT INSTEAD OF TABLING IT, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT CLOSING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. YOU'RE CONTINUING IT TO YOUR NEXT MEETING, AND YOU WOULD RECONVENE THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU MAKE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE FOR, YOU KNOW, TO BE REVIEWED AND DISCUSSED. AGAIN. SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE BOARD'S WISHES ARE IN TERMS OF. I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT MAKING SOME CHANGES THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN JUST TYPOS AND MORE THAN THEY WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE BOARD WANTS TO DO, I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE JUST TO CONTINUE IT AND GET ANOTHER DOCUMENT GENERATED WITH THOSE CHANGES IN BACK BEFORE THE BOARD AT ITS NEXT MEETING. SO WE NEED TO YOU SAY WE NEED TO CONTINUE IT INSTEAD OF ADD CONDITIONS OR WELL, YOU COULD DO IT, YOU COULD ADD THE CONDITIONS, BUT IT WOULD BE EXPECTING A LOT TO JUST READ THOSE CONDITIONS OUT HERE TODAY AND DIRECTING THE AUSTIN TO TRY TO AND THEN INCORPORATE THOSE CONDITIONS IN A WAY THAT, THAT Y'ALL WANT TO SEE THEM IN THE FINAL DOCUMENT BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE YOU'D BE APPROVING THE FINAL DOCUMENT TONIGHT. AM I, AM I BEING CLEAR? I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD STATE THOSE CONDITIONS IN SUCH A WAY, BUT BUT IF WE VOTED ON IT TONIGHT, THEN IT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT. SO IF WE WANTED TO COME BACK AND TWO MONTHS, WE COULD AMEND IT. COULD YOU IF WE IF WE HEAR MORE, MORE EVIDENCE OR MORE INFORMATION. I MEAN, THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT THE CITIZENS TO KNOW IS WE THIS WE'RE IN OUR THIRD MORATORIUM AND THERE GETS TO BE A POINT THAT YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO DO IT ONE DAY. YOU GOT TO FISH OR CUT BAIT. OKAY. AND WE HAVE TO STAND ON THAT. SO WE'RE AT WE'RE AT THE, WE, WE, WE'RE IN AGAIN, WE'RE IN OUR THIRD MORATORIUM. AND SO IT'S A LIVING DOCUMENT. IF WE, IF WE DO APPROVE IT, THEN WE CAN MAKE CHANGES TO IT. AND BECAUSE WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DATA CENTERS AS WE GO ALONG, THIS WON'T BE THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, I'M SURE, AS WE LEARN MORE INFORMATION AND WE MIGHT HAVE OTHER IDEAS. SO THAT'S ONE WAY.MY GREATEST CONCERN IS THAT WE'LL BE DOING THIS SIX MONTHS FROM NOW. SO WE WE NEED TO MAKE A MOVE IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD. OTHERWISE, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO FIND ISSUES ALONG THE WAY. WE ARE. AND I THINK WE CAN DEAL WITH IT AS THEY COME ALONG. I MEAN, I PERSONALLY, I FEEL GOOD. SEEMS LIKE WE GOT A LOT OF BLESSING ON WHAT WE PRODUCED UP TO THIS POINT. WILL WE EVER GET TO A FINAL DOCUMENT? WOULD THERE WON'T BE ANY? NO. IT'S GOING TO CHANGE. THE WORLD CHANGES. IT'S GOING TO BE A PERFECT DOCUMENT THOUGH. NO, IT'S WELL, IT'S IT'S PERFECT FOR TODAY, BUT IT WON'T BE FOR THE FUTURE. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT WE GOT TO MAKE A DECISION AT SOME POINT. SO AND I LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND REVISE MAKE ADDENDUMS, MAKE AMENDMENTS. YEAH YEAH YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL I'VE GOT ALL THE PUBLIC HEARING OUT OF IT. I THIS IS THE SECOND READING. IT IS VOTE ELIGIBLE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SO MOVE YOU MAKE A MOTION. YOU MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE. YES. OKAY. NO I WON'T CONDITIONS ON IT. WELL, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD ANY MORE TONIGHT, IT'S GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO WE CAN VOTE ON IT TONIGHT AND JUST ADD THEM IN. RIGHT. WE COULD VOTE IF WE MADE A MOTION TO MAKE THAT. NO. IF YOU VOTE ON IT TONIGHT WITH CONDITIONS IT'S IT'S DONE. YOU GOT A LIST OF CONDITIONS I'M SAYING RIGHT. THOSE WITH THE LIST OF CONDITIONS SO WE CAN MAKE A MOTION WITH CONDITIONS. WELL, YOU, YOU, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION CONDITIONS. THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IF YOU MAKE A MOTIONS WITH CONDITIONS, IT THEN BECOMES INCUMBENT UPON STAFF TO TRY TO WRITE THOSE INTO THE ORDINANCE WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW.
AND YOU ESSENTIALLY. OKAY, CAN I GO OVER THE CONDITIONS WITH THE STAFF? YOU CAN'T. YOU CERTAINLY CAN GO IF THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, I GUESS YOU CAN CERTAINLY FEEL THAT. I, WE WE GOT A PROBLEM PUTTING EVERY SINGLE THING INSIDE THAT 1500 FOOT, THE RETENTION POND, EVERYTHING AND THE HEIGHT. WE GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE BRINGING THAT HEIGHT DOWN TO 40 FOOT. YOU SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? I CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN THAT A LOT OF DATA CENTERS AREN'T YOU. WE HAD TALKED BEFORE LIKE 60 FOOT EVERYTHING IN OUR COUNTY IN THE
[01:00:08]
UNINCORPORATED AREA, MAXIMUM OF 40FT. I THINK THEY NEED TO BE 40 FOOT OFFSHORE IF THEY LIKE, YOU KNOW, AND THEY LIKE TO ALSO PUT IN WHAT COMMISSIONER MCCAIN WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE GOOD NEIGHBOR, THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, THE NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBOR POLICY. YEP. WELL, AGAIN, THAT'S, I GUESS, KIND OF THE DILEMMA OF SIMPLE THINGS LIKE CHANGING THE HEIGHT AND THE SETBACKS. THAT'S EASY TO DO. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE THAT. GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY IS A LITTLE BIT MORE INVOLVED AND DETAILED. OKAY. KIND OF DIFFICULT TO ARTICULATE IN SUCH A WAY TONIGHT THAT IT COULD BE, I, I, I'M NOT I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR YOU. YOU TELL, YOU TELL US, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD KNOW TO BE ABLE TO BE IN A POSITION TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO A WRITTEN DOCUMENT? AS FAR AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY GO, I WOULD FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THIS. AS FAR AS THE SETBACKS AND THE BUILDING HEIGHT, IT'S VERY SIMPLE, AS SIMPLE AS CHANGING NUMBERS. I HAVE A TWO PAGE DOCUMENT, I CAN GIVE IT TO YOU, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THE OTHER COMMISSIONS TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WITH IT BEING A TWO PAGE DOCUMENT, I'D FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE GETTING FEEDBACK FROM YOU GUYS IN ORDER TO WRITE THAT GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY. OKAY, GOOD. SO ARE WE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE THESE CONDITIONS? YOU HAD THE. WELL, I WROTE DOWN THE MOST THAT YOU COULD DO. I THINK YOU COULD DO THE NUMBERS AND DO THAT AS CONDITIONS. AND YOU COULD. YOU COULD ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TODAY. IT WOULD NOT HAVE THE TWO THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY IN. BUT YOU COULD DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT THAT AND PUT IT BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHICH WOULD AGAIN, REQUIRE IT TO GO FOR THE ZONING BOARD AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU LATER AS A REVISED, REVISED ORDINANCE, THE LIVING DOCUMENT ASPECT OF IT THE CHAIRMAN WAS DISCUSSING.THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE, AGAIN, TO, YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE IT UNTIL THE NEXT TIME.
AND OR AUSTIN HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET YOUR NOTES AND INCORPORATE IT IN THE DOCUMENT AND THEN HAVE A CLEAN DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU. YEAH. ONE QUICK QUESTION. ARE WE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT? SO THAT'S THAT'S PART OF THE SPECIAL USE YOU I, IN MY OPINION, I THINK YOU WOULD PROBABLY BE STRETCHING THE LIMITS ON CONDITION. FOR SOMETHING THAT DETAILED AND SPECIFIC AS A CONDITION FOR SPECIAL USE WHEN IT WAS NOT IN THE UNDERLYING. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. SO LET ME ASK, I GOT A LEGAL QUESTION FOR YOU. YOU SAID EARLIER THAT, I MEAN, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T WE STAY REASONABLE IN OUR REQUEST OR OUR ZONING. SO IF WE HAVE A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY FOR ONE COMPANY, SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE NEXT COMPANY COMES IN AND WE DON'T IF WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM, THAT THAT GOES BACK TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED BEFORE, WHICH IS THAT IS AN ELEMENT OF LEGAL RISK. NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT, BUT IT OPENS UP THE ARGUMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE REQUIRING THIS GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY FOR ONE CERTAIN USE, WHEREAS THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER USE OUT THERE THAT IS IS EQUALLY IMPACTFUL THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING.
RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE KIND OF AN EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT. SO THAT'D BE I'D BE MY CONCERN IF WE DID TREAT ONE BUSINESS DIFFERENT. WE DO ANOTHER ONE. HOW DO WE HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT IF IT COMES UP? SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE DOCUMENT, THE DOCUMENT, BUT I THINK THOSE HAVE GOT TO BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND DRAFTED. BEFORE THEY GO INTO A INTO AN ORDINANCE. OKAY. SO I WANT TO GET ALL IN THERE. ARE YOU SUGGESTING TONIGHT TO TABLE IT OR CONTINUE IT? I THINK IF YOU IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS TO THE ORDINANCE, YES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I WANT IT. IT'S AS STERN AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN. IN THAT CASE, I DON'T WANT TO MISS. I WANT EVERYTHING DONE CORRECTLY. OF COURSE, SOMEONE WOULD NEED TO MAKE THE MOTION, OBVIOUSLY IN A VOTE, BUT. THOSE ARE THE WE'RE TACKLING IT. ARE WE CONTINUING IT? WELL, THAT THAT'S YOUR THAT'S YOUR CALL. IF YOU IF YOU TABLE IT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS OUR TABLE. ALL
[01:05:04]
WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TAKING SOME TIME TO CONSIDER WHAT WE WANT TO DO. WE'RE NOT REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'VE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE WE NEED TO HEAR. IF YOU CONTINUE IT, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT CLOSED.WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT OPEN AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER JUST DO LIKE THE COUNTY HAS DONE BEFORE, COME UP WITH A NEW DOCUMENT WHICH WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND THAT IS YOUR CHOICE.
EITHER. EITHER WAY WILL WORK LEGALLY. I JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU THINK WE DO? I DON'T THINK WE DO. WHAT DO YOU GUYS DO? MAKE A MOTION. MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? VALERIE? I'M NOT FREEZING UP. MINE'S FREEZING UP OVER HERE. LET ME TRY IT AGAIN. THERE IT IS. IT'S UP. THE MOTION. MOTION IS CARRIED TO TABLE. THIS MATTER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT IS ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE THAT WE COME OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING. GO BACK INTO REGULAR MEETING AND ADJOURN. SO MOVED. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY, VERY MUCH FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO BE WITH US. HAVE A GOOD
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.