Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to city park council meeting. Um before we get started, item two is a scrub for tonight. If you have an itinerary from outside that'll be put on the agenda for 14 days from tonight.
the uh the spokesperson that was going to bring that paperwork and information to us um can't do it tonight because she's still waiting for documentation to come back from the state grants organization. So that that'll be back on
the agenda in 14 days. All right. Um meeting is called to order the invocation. Mr. Chapel, everybody please stand. The Lord bless this council as we proceed to go and make decisions on the
current budgets and stuff throughout the coming months and bless our firefighters and our police officers that they stay out of harm's way. I say all this in your name.
>> Amen. Amen. Would it be >> I pledge algiance 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.
>> Please be seated. >> Uh, Madame Courtney, please call the role. >> Sir, Miss Barrow here. Miss Potterford here. Mr. Mr. Chapel here. >> Mr. Haney here. >> Mayor Kelly. >> Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Um, at this time, if there's anybody in our lovely audience that would like to come to the
podium, state your name and address, and have a conversation about anything that's not on this itinerary, that's including the second item, which has been moved 14 days. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> I'm Melanie Hatcock. I'm um I live at
559 Park Street um here in Parker and actually um here on behalf of my clients, my buyer and my seller for the property located at 5127 Blue Harbor Drive, we are asking that the land use be changed to allow the buyer to install
a >> It's not on the itinerary. Do we know which one is it? >> No, >> this is not on the itinary. I thought you said that there wasn't anything on the itinerary. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. If it's not, you just want to talk about it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
>> So, basically, buyer and seller have an agreement for three partials that would otherwise probably be worthless. Uh the buyer is a neighbor who wants to install a pool, and she'll be gifting uh part of that uh purchase, part of the partials to the HOA in that community that also
wanted to purchase, but they could not afford it. Um, so they have looked into their due diligence to see if a pool could be installed via Cox Pools. Um, and the HOA obviously is going to allow them to do that because they're gifting them that portion of the partial. Uh,
the only thing that's stopping them from closing is a land use change so they can install a pool. >> Okay. Um, what you need to do since, um, this is news to most of the council exactly the details is come in tomorrow and get with um, Mr. Boyd. >> Okay. the the um the individual in the
officer takes care of all this kind of stuff. >> Okay. >> And he'll fill out all the paperwork for you. And then when it's done, I think it has to go to the planning council first, does it not? >> And then when the planning council gives it its blessing, it goes to the Pope in Rome. And then when that's done, they'll send it back to us and we'll finally get
to to approve it. But uh yeah, you'll need to go with Kevin Boyd. >> Okay. >> In the office. He's the planner for the city. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else in the audience that wants to tell us about something? Okay, great.
Um, first item is item of approve the uh minutes for July the 15th. >> I had a correct under items from the audience on this one. >> Yeah, >> it says the audience shared about an oil
container overflowing and I think that was Miss Morris. >> We fixed it. But I know, but it states the audience did. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. It wasn't that. It was Miss Morris said. >> She noticed that there was some grease on the ground around it.
>> She's the one that come in here. I'm saying it says the audience. It should be changed to Marie. >> Okay. So, Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Not in the audience. Miss um >> Morris. >> Yeah. >> Mrs. Morris knew who it was written out who it really was.
>> And then the next day, public works immediately went out and took care of that. >> They did. >> I make a motion to approve as with the with the change. I was on >> motion's made to approve the minutes with the change. I have a second. >> Second.
>> I have a second. Call a roll, please. Okay. Uh Miss Barrow. >> Yes. >> Miss Berford. Yes. >> Mr. Chapel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Haney. Yes. And Mayor Kelly. >> Yes. Thank you, councel. Um, as I said, item two is going to be postponed for 14 days. Would >> you like to have some conversation about
that? >> It being postponed. >> Well, just about the whole issue. >> Well, you can if you want. I don't know. I don't know nothing about it other than what I've been reading. >> Well, if you turn to page 405 of their proposal, you got task A through G.
Okay, >> that amounts to the amount of 175 thou $170,540. >> Can Can I bring you up to speed on this a little bit? I discovered before the meeting started about 12 minutes ago >> that those docu those documents were put
in here by accident. They has in fact not been wasn't correct. Um and it's I hope not >> and uh and it's being remedied right now and that's one of the reasons it got pulled back. I'm kind of just
>> It's a lot of money. >> Well, of course. And that this anchor engineering we have ever is the city of Parker ever sought out to find another engineering firm that could be a little more feasible with their
>> little fees. Yeah. Cheaper. That's the word I was looking for because this is >> that's outrageous. I mean that's that's just engineering before the asphalt is put down. waste of money. >> Right. Well, um >> I mean I don't understand how they have such a monopoly on the city. It's it's
been Mrs. Moore for with the city as long as I can remember back in 2013. But whether it be Deubberry Ridge, Prebble Ridge, uh Deubberry now, I guess they have their own show, but that's that's just >> Would you like me to research bidding it? >> I think that'd be a fantastic idea.
>> Okay. Do we do we need >> mayor? I would say uh that you already have some alternatives. Uh Miss Moore is on a continuing contract as I believe you all have maybe two other engineering
companies on a continuing contract. So uh that would be where I would start mayor is to confirm the continuing contract because you may already have alternatives without having to go out for >> Okay. Would that be okay if I discuss that? And
>> and I also believe it makes our city planners job a little easier if if the our engineer had a little more >> contact with whoever's trying to build. Uh >> the engineer had more contract
communication because the anchor doesn't want to communicate with anybody's trying to build. they have to want to go through the city and that's a two week ordeal and so on so so on so forth. >> I I don't know what the answer is to right off the top of my head. You threw
me for a loop, but I will definitely be willing to find out for you and let you know. That's for sure. >> I mean, that's that's a lot of money for just >> it's a lot of money, but I understand my understanding is that it's been pulled back and it wasn't supposed to been in the package, but for clarity, it is. And
it's why it stood like this. and the the the adjusted um fee is significantly less. And now the reason it's been pulled back, my understanding from the conversation 15 minutes ago, is because they are looking for this is a federal
highway and it's been passed to the county and passed to Parker. And that's the dilemma in the um uh granting process. However, uh Moore is in the process right now of looking for federal funding to pay for that administrative
portion that's in this document we're looking at. But that might be that the feds say no because that's not their road anymore. Or FEMA might say no because it's not our not the federal highway anymore. So, there's some difficulties that she's working on. But,
uh if you'd like me to find out, I'll sit down with Mr. loan and I could find out for you, sir. Um um other companies that are interested in bidding these jobs, >> right? And what's he up to now? 300 an hour. >> Oh, no. I'll do it on his way home so I
don't have to pay him. I follow him around in his car. >> We can just swap out. I'll take that 170 and I'll give up the 300. How about that? >> Buy him lunch and figure this stuff out. >> Uh Mr. Do we know if the the whole road
where it stops at Cherry Street is the rest of the road? Who does that belong to? >> Mr. Summerland >> from Cherry Street 22. >> Yeah. The Springfield belongs to the intersection. >> So when did when did this this road get
given to Springfield and Parker? >> Tony, >> I I can't quote the date right now, but there's document that I could produce. >> I'd like to see that. >> It was a state road. It was given the state gave it to the county and then the county gave Parker Highway 228, Hickory
Street, Oakore Drive. >> That's been a long time ago. >> Five roads that they gave to the city with that. >> That was a long long time ago. >> A very old document. >> Well, I'm not concerned about all the others. What I'm concerned about is the 22. >> See that document?
>> Let's work up something. Mr. Sl got good points. I mean, we probably should find out this information and bring it forward. Do we want to do that before we talk about paving? >> I would prefer. >> Yeah, Mr. Sling, can we do that?
>> Absolutely. >> All right. I'll get you guys an answer before we pave anything. >> Thanks, sir. >> Okay. All right. Next item is the um discussion of nonconforming properties in Parker, item three. Um, let me just
tell you what I know about it and then we can discuss it. Um, there are, I want to say, seven or eight properties in Parker that have been here for some time and the land development regulation was
changed um, after these buildings were built and the property owners own the property. And since then, one of the properties
has been converted to from a duplex to a single family home and uh and then sold. Right. So now it's just a single family home. What Mr. Brandon and some of the other people that came to Fifth Tuesday
were asking was, and they may you you may have more information than I do, but they're asking that since they owned the property before the land development regulation was changed to where you couldn't sell it or gift it or donate
it. I think I'm am I on track there. Um, they want that left as it was before we changed the rules. Now, the council, to the best of my memory, voted on this based upon what the
planning council advised, but I've looked at some documents in the last couple weeks, and I'm not sure that that information that we were given was interpreted exactly the way we should have interpreted it. So, Mr. Brandon has
two or three properties, and there's another lady, I can't remember her name, she came to our meeting last week, Guyger. >> Miss Guyer. Yeah. >> And there were other people that came >> and um they would like to have um their
duplexes remain duplexes because they own them before we change the law. And it seems to me that if you own a piece of property, then you should be able to do what you would like to do with that
piece of property. Now, if you if you sell it, you sell it. And at that time, the new owner should be able to get it for what you used it for, if I'm pronouncing that right. >> Transferable. >> It would be transferable. That's what
the man says. But what I'm saying is is that um uh what stop me if I'm wrong here, but what you're asking for is a change to the land development regulation that will
allow you to keep your duplex, triplex, whatever, uh as what it is, even though at the time of your demise and Darlene gets it all um that it that that she
could then have it basically. Am I am I on track with that? >> No, not exactly. The issue here is not that she could get it, but if I decide >> Come to the podium so we can record it. >> If I decide to sell this property, it should be transferable. That's what the issue is. Okay. They stopped the
transferable of it. >> Okay. >> Uh >> can you answer me a question because I'm not clear on this. Why did that happen? >> I'm not sure. I think some people and I wasn't, you know, I'm in a lot of meetings. I started to bring the LDR, but I needed a wheelbarrow to load it in
my car. I look through it. >> I don't know how it got passed other than a couple of people that voted for it >> actually live across the street from >> non-conforming properties. Now, I've been told that they were afraid that if
their property that they owned would lose value if they sold it, if it was next to a non-conforming duplex, but they bought their property when it was non-conforming duplex. So, if that's the issue, they would have got a discount when they bought it. Can you tell me why
the elected body at the time didn't say, "Okay, from this day on, you can't do this, but from this point back, it's okay to stay like it is." >> I don't understand. And I missed when all this was going on because I go to a lot of meetings and uh actually 40% of
properties in Parker or rentals. I've got the form right here. >> Okay. >> A lot of rentals. My duplex, if I want to sell it, will not devalue any property in the area. Zero. Devalued property by me selling as
a duplex when they bought their property would have been devalued. >> But do you agree that if you have a property that's a duplex, use that for an example, and you convert it to a regular house that it's now it is what it is. You can't keep flipping back and
forth. >> Yes. If you want to take a any multifamily and convert it to a single family, Parker would be happy with that. It then it would be in the R1 uh regulations of a single family in R1. Okay, that would be fine. There's not an
issue with that. But nobody in Parker can take a house in R1 and turn it into a multifamily. That's already written in stone. >> Okay. All right. >> It always has been. >> Council, do you have any questions on this? because we hear about it pretty often.
>> Well, this was all done whenever you were here, u April, Stacy, and for the record, I'm the only one that voted no on the land development to approve them. So, just so everybody knows, >> I mean, >> because I didn't agree with everything in it.
>> But yes, it was done. And I remember when they they all sit there because when we had all of them in here and it was us two, the planning commission and us. Yeah. >> And and it went back and forth about it all. And >> but are you hearing what he's saying? And the man's saying that he bought it and the rules changed after he bought it
and now basically he can't resell it if he wants to sell it like he bought it. Am I not mean of it? Right. >> That's what is in the land development regulation. >> Okay. But yeah, but we we are elected by the people Tanya to make changes in the law if we made a mistake.
>> Well, I agree. I would I I would go to change it in a heartbeat. I mean, I don't have a problem changing it. Okay. >> It's just that it was put in there and that's the way it is. Way it reads is what why is he >> Okay. Ma'am, did you want to come to the podium? >> I'd like to because I own duplexes and
I'd like to speak on this. >> Kim King, 4716 East 6th Street. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Our duplexes, not currently owned by me. My rentals are across the street. They're all individual homes. >> My mother-in-law's duplexes are attached to her home, but they're in my driveway.
Okay? >> They'll never be sold individually. So, you know of you don't know that >> that well I'm not going to sell they're supposed to go to my husband at the time of her demise so how is this going to affect us retaining them when they're in
my driveway it there's a whole other >> so it looks to me like >> it's been in the family for generations and it was grandfathered >> family and that's not a different person buying it >> okay >> it's got to be that way >> it's going to have to be transferred over into someone's name like a sale then
>> surely surely If if if you own a piece of property >> probably >> well warranty dated. Yeah. >> Just just so you know how I would vote. I don't believe the government should tell you what to do with your property. >> Yeah. >> And these were all built on that
property before these rules were ever changed. So >> I mean it's it's the terminology of being grandfathered in. I I own a business. There were rules put in place after my business was put there, but those rules don't apply to you because I was there first, >> right?
>> So, I feel if you have a duplex and you want to sell that duplex, the person who's going to buy that duplex is going to anticipate using it as a duplex. >> That's why they would buy it. >> The ones in my driveway will never be converted to individual use because they're in my driveway. But I don't feel
I don't have any intention of selling them off. They'll stay in my family. But in maybe two or three generations, you don't know what might happen. >> Well, then the whole whole lot of it all be sold. Most likely >> you won't be here. >> We need we we need to make sure when we make rules and laws that we make them good for the people.
>> Mhm. >> You know, and I see what Brandon's been telling me for the last three months. I mean, he says, "How come he bought something and now he he can't sell it for what he paid for it?" What he bought for it. Ma'am, what do you you have a >> I kind of have a different Jamie Hinrix
4612 Sunset Drive. We built a house on Donaldson Point. >> Yeah. >> Um >> around single family homes. >> All of them. >> Mr. No, Mr. Striker's home was originally a duplex. >> Okay. >> So now I've built this house across the street from what could go back to it be
a duplex. My property values will go down. >> No, >> it can't go back to being a duplex. >> State office leave my house. >> No, it can't. Can it? What we're saying is if you buy if there's a property as a duplex and you sell it, you want to sell it as a duplex. >> Okay? So, what I'm asking is
>> No, they're not saying turn it back into a dup. >> So, there needs to be something in there that if it's used as a single family home for the last 180 days, like we do with um mobile homes. If it's pulled out for 180 days, you can't put a mobile home back in there. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. in and it's been
a single family home for six months that >> why couldn't we recruit four or five people who are very interested and knowledgeable about this, yourself included, to help draft the document. >> I just want you guys to think of everything. I know that >> we got to make sure we get it right. >> A duplex in there. It's always been used
as a duplex. I don't have a problem with it staying a duplex. But if you have somebody who buys that empty lot next door to you and they think it's a single family home because you've only rented it out to one family for the last five years and they build this huge house next to it and suddenly they live next to a duplex with 12 cars and no parking
for it. It decreases your property values. >> Yeah. >> If I could. >> Yeah. Okay. Mr. The counter to this and what the discussion was in 2021 and two was that that Parker was going to move
to try to get all of the properties in compliance with the code >> with residential properties being >> if it's a low density residential land use then as attrition would take uh time
but eventually everything would become a loadian density residential. >> That's why we voted. That's why you voted the way you did. >> That is why I understood the council voted that a nonconforming use because we had a lot of discussion about the
difference between nonconforming structure and a nonconforming use. And the the the whole discussion centered upon how would Parker eventually get to a point where if if you've got a low
density residential land use that you don't have multifamily structures. The way that that the council ultimately voted, as my understanding, was to have the provision over there in subp
paragraph six under 6-3.1 that said when you sell it that that it loses its nonconforming use status. said that eventually all non-conforming uses would be would be then conforming with
whatever land use category they were in this case low density residential. So there is a reason that I believe that you guys voted in 21 and 22 to have that language in there without any caveat
without a well if we give it to grandma then it it it could stay the way it is or we give it to a nephew or whatever. That's the reason and many many cities probably most cities have a cut off
period of ha of when the grandfathering goes away. If you think about um even some of the publicized things like out on the beach where they were getting rid of of the the the rentals of some of the equipment out there and they were doing
it on a phased in period uh or getting rid of the adult establishments or whatever. Yeah, >> they phased them in over a period of time. >> This would be phasing in over a period of time also. But it's that was my
understanding of the purpose of what you all were having the discussion and ultimately voted on the fact that you now have a few properties that u are are involved that predated and then the
question becomes what's the predate? Well the original >> 2021 >> the original land use was in uh land development regulations was in 90. Is that the date that you use for a cut off or 21 or 22?
>> That would be up to the elected body to decide that. >> That That's what I'm saying. If you're going to clarify it, that would be certainly an area of clarification. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Jan Russell, 433 South Highway 22A. >> Yes, ma'am. >> When y'all change changed things, the
corner of 11th and Hickory, there was one apartment building that was destroyed in hurricane. The other is still there. There is no way that you could change that apartment. The apartment building is still there. It's a four unit. You can't
change that into a single rental. But I mean residents. The thing of it is >> I see what you're saying. Then there's no way it would ever be. That's the twotory, right? >> That's the twotory. Okay. And then we have the trailer, three trailers next
door. When we moved here in 81, that was a trailer park from 5210. There was a house. And then there was a trailer park. A lot of people weren't around back then. I mean, they were
sitting all over the place. >> I understand. >> And eventually Tom Batty sold off the land. >> Yes, ma'am. >> The two apartments went in. But as it stands now, when it comes time to settle our estate,
there is going to be a problem with the way the rules are because the trailer park is not going to be grandfathered at this point. I don't expect it would be grandfathered in. That means all these three families would have to move.
>> Yeah. >> And that's not right. I mean, some of >> Well, I don't know if they'd have to move, but when they vacated the property, it couldn't be a trailer park again. >> Am I correct on that? >> That's what it would be.
>> Say they're saying if they wind up >> in other do their home, I'll never do that. >> Well, >> but they wouldn't own they they she wouldn't own it anymore. >> The next owner would own it. Do you
already know who that will be? >> No, not off hand. I'm not I'm not planning on going anywhere. >> Well, I mean, me neither, but I know where I'm going to do with my properties. >> Out of state will probably be handled by someone out of out of state. >> Yeah.
>> And so that could turn into a problem because they wouldn't knew they wouldn't know about this here, >> right? Yes. >> Well, it would be in the land development regulation if we made a change that the change would have to be documented properly because we've got
this lady here who she's got a legitimate uh complaint about it. You got to make sure that whatever we do is done for the best of the people. >> We bought our house from um 22A
all the way to Hick or all the way to 11th Street. Yeah. was empty except for Jol Lee's house, >> right? >> I mean, all these houses came after everything else. >> Yep. >> And so we're some of the original. We're the
original and the trailer park was original and uh in ' 85 the apartment buildings that was when they started >> to >> all the houses came after in about mid80s. >> Yes ma'am. Can I ask the council, do you
have any thoughts on this? Any any can what you think we should be thinking about? >> Well, I will say that um when Rich Musgrave was here and after I got back on the council, he sit right
there in that chair and he did every darn thing he could do to get any mobile home that once you if you sold it, it would never be another mobile home there. And I sit here and I argued with them and argued with them and they supposedly changed that. But >> Well, they did change it. If you have a
mobile home and it falls down, you put another one there. >> Yeah. But >> you got 180 days. I think >> what's in the land development regulations. >> That that's what it says. The only thing that I was concerned about is they'll say there's 20 brick
houses on your street and the house falls down that they put in a single wide mobile home that devalues the property in the neighborhood. But if you got 20 houses on the street and one of them is a duplex and they're all made of bricks and one of them is a rental and it was there since 1965
for say, would would that be uh permissible for somebody to sell that duplex? And it really boils down to what the law says really >> what we concerned about is what the law's going to say. If say for instance
we sell what's called a trailer park. It's only three trailers, right? But none of those fancy houses around there. We've never heard one word from any of them across the street. And our people they they do what they need to do.
They're they're just as good as the people in the houses. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. >> And so it's it's a case of it's just not right. They built the house there with the trailers already there. >> The trailers were already there. I understand completely and I agree with you completely.
>> It It's just a matter of It looks like Parker's doing something that is affecting some people's incomes. I mean, if you have a rental and it's nonconforming and you want to sell it for a profit or something, >> well, everybody probably wants to sell
their home for more money than they paid for it after they lived there for 30 years. But that's not the mobile homes are not the question. >> No, but it's See, we could we could we have the empty lot there. >> Yeah.
>> Well, we don't sell it because I don't want to run into problems. And actually, it's one deed with two parcels. >> Yeah. And there's two mobile homes on each parcel. >> No. Three mobile homes on one parcel and the other parcel is >> it's vacant. Yeah.
>> Yes. and we've had offers on it, but I'm not I'm not interested. I'd like to see it all go together. >> Yeah. >> And I'd like to protect the people in the trailer that they don't ever have to move. >> Yeah. >> As long as they're there. >> And I see your concern with the duplex rule. And I understand that, too.
>> And And you're never going to be able to change that twotory rental. >> Um I don't think that they'll ever build back another twotory there. >> I think what's there is what's there. >> True. And you got this little bitty lot
that they were wanting 75,000 for it and finally it's down to like 15 or >> you couldn't give it away. >> They couldn't give it away because it >> it's too small. Yeah. >> You don't want to put a house there. >> Nope. >> And maybe they couldn't put a rental. Maybe it wouldn't carry over to put a
rental in there. Another apartment building. Is that what happened? >> I don't know. But I would think that the lot was too small to build on is what my guess would be. >> It would have to be the same type building. It would have to be we would have to vote on that because if you look at some of the properties in Parker that would destroyed, we haven't been able to
build them back because we haven't had an arrangement or agreement where they were put in place like they were. We have some on South Lakewood that before we could uh after all the paperwork was agreed upon, the individual didn't do it and he he didn't do it for five years.
So now it kind of put him in re in a reverse mode, you know. But >> I understand what you're saying about that apartment. And the only thing you could put there was have a contract appeal another one identical to the one that was there. That's the only thing you could do. >> Yeah. >> And in your particular case that you're
talking about, that probably is something that we could that they should have already brought to us for for for advisement on, you know. But >> yeah, I just I just when when we're gone, I want that property to be able to be sold that the renters that are there
and they're long-term renters, right? I mean, they've been a long term. >> Yeah. >> Uh, I want them to be able to stay there and not have to pick up, move. >> I know you're talking about the mobile homes. >> The mobile home. >> See, that's what she's saying is that if they sell the property
>> to somebody >> that they can't those mobile homes can't stay there, >> right? >> The way it is because >> it's residential >> and this is multiousing. >> Yeah. But
>> I feel like If now if something were to happen, God forsaken, something were to happen and tear down one of the mobile homes. I mean, >> you couldn't put another one back. You have 180 days to do it and that be it. >> It has to be same size and all that. >> Yeah. It's got to fit the same
footprint, >> right? But if you look at a mobile home today, they're like 150,000 for a single one. >> You could build a house. I think that we need to get together and get all these scenarios that we're discussing here and
get and let's figure out what we can do to change it so that we can >> try to help everybody, >> right? It's been before the planning council. I don't really want them to be involved in this. This is for us to deal with >> because it keeps getting batted around.
We need to go ahead and we need to go ahead and find a solution that's good for all of the people of Parker and put it to bed. That's what we need to do. >> Well, according to the planning con council, when I went to their meeting, they said they said that um it's statemandated and we don't have any
choice here in Parker. >> That's not true. We have home rule. We don't care about that. >> That's what we're here for. >> That's what we you elected us to >> That's what they told me when I asked them about the same situation. Don't Don't waste your air with talking. That's not correct. That is not correct. >> Oh, he talked with authority.
>> Did he? Yeah. He's pretty smarter than me. >> Yes, sir. Can I get the council to weigh in on this before we walk away from it? Mr. Chapel, do you have anything you'd like to talk about in this subject matter? >> Not on this subject matter. I think like
I say, we ought to have them if they're duplex now, they should stay a duplex. If they change it to a single family, then it's got to stay as single. >> That's exactly how I feel about it.
That's exactly how I feel about it. >> Mr. Haney, do you have any thoughts on it? >> I just worry about Mr. Brandon's monkeys. >> We listen, I didn't want to I wasn't going to bring it up because it's recorded, but I'll help him with those.
>> Okay. Mr. Brandon, do you have anything? Okay. >> Uh, no. I mean, I feel like if you own a piece of property and you sell it and you sell it, you know, somebody's going to buy that property, they're buying it as is the way it is. >> And I think that Miss Bear's right. We
need to have a sit down and talk about this soon >> because I'd like to put this to bed because this keeps it it it just keeps floating across and never getting finalized. And we need to have we need to have something in place that makes
everybody happy. You're not gonna make everybody happy, but try to make as many people happy as you can and fix it. Fix this problem because I don't want to pass this on to somebody else and in three years it's not not fixed. You know what I'm saying? Mr. Brandon, you had
the floor, sir. You got one minute. >> 30 seconds. >> I should have brought my law firm. Do we cheat him and how? >> Yeah. >> And you know what they used to be before that? >> No. >> The Three Stooges. Show ended. They became lawyers. Yeah, >> it's called do we cheat them and how the
original uh zoning on this had triggers which were perfect. It said if your duplex is any multifamily destroyed more than 51%
it can't stand. Y that's the perfect why would you put it backanded for 180 days then it can't be >> So let me answer that question. This lady says she got three mobile homes on one lot. And if they get destroyed, can she still replace them?
>> I would say probably not, >> right? >> Uh >> that is why we've got to write this down. >> If they're destroyed and they're insured, like a lot of mobile homes that old aren't, >> then you'd want to put something nicer there anyway. >> Correct. >> So I would say,
>> but if she doesn't want to, what would we do with the people that lived in the mobile homes? >> Well, if they're destroyed, >> they're gone. >> Huh? they'd be gone. >> And also the uh other key is if you have a multifamily home, you cannot enlarge
it or do anything structurally to then it is not >> it's not nonconforming anymore. That's how the law read before and that's what it should be. It's really uh I guess a common sense thing. And once they
changed it and you said there might be what how many non-conforming and part >> I think there are seven So, why would seven little pieces that are nonconforming be an issue here with being kept as they are if they're sold?
I was told that you could will it to a relative, you know, and it would you could keep it. I'm thinking, well, so I've got to marry somebody I'm selling it to and telling them they're related to me just to get rid of it. >> Okay. >> Cuz they're family. We we we will have a
meeting very soon and we'll sit down and we'll talk about this because obviously there is a diversification in the people in this room on what we should and shouldn't do and there's got to be a simple solution to this. We're all grown-ups. We can say we can talk about it. >> I just hope it doesn't get like
discussion and get what I call quicksand. You know what I mean? It just gets in there and doesn't get settled. I was hoping it would be settled this evening, you know, on a boat. Uh, they've been here forever. You know, my
duplex, I probably could convert it. It's very nice. There's a vacant lot on one side. There's a house that faces a weird angle and there's a vacant lot. >> But she brought up a good point. Now, think about this and don't think you want a duplex. You buy a lot in Donaldson Point and you have a house
built there and you move in then you find out the day after you moved in there's a duplex next door that's a rental. You might not want that now. >> Well, I've been buying real estate for 35 years and it's called due diligence on the buyer to do information and check on what they're buying before they buy
it. You should research what's around your neighborhood. There's three important things to real estate is location, location, location. Miss Hathcock, can you tell me or tell the council how you would find out if a house was a duplex or not if you were the buyer of the lot beside it to build
a house? >> Well, I mean, I don't think that I would look into >> the realtor wouldn't, would they? >> No, absolutely not. >> I think I'd drive by and if I saw it with two doors in the front, two driveways, I would just considered a duplex.
>> She sells them every day and so she knows. >> But in reality, the buyers focus on that Even if the real estate agent is worth their search, >> then you know what I have to say about that? Shame on the buyer from not doing research.
>> Okay. Well, >> shame on them for not driving by the house and seeing what's in the area. See if there's something that >> we get a workshop together. >> We're going to have a workshop, ladies and gentlemen, and then we will definitely put this to bed very, very
soon. Okay, last item, ladies and gentlemen, is surplus items that are in your package. Mr. Someone's getting the stuff together. It's a bunch of old junk and equipment. And there's a truck in there, not a trailer that was listed, but um we
need your blessing to be able to put this stuff up for sale. >> Well, whoever taught this needs to learn how to spell sewer. >> Okay, we got you. They spelled it down. >> Server. >> Oh my god. Those keys are very close
together on the keyboard. >> Okay. So, what do we need to do? We need >> We need a blessing. A first and a second. >> Surplus. >> Declare surplus. >> I make a motion that we declare. >> Okay. We got a first and a second. Would you call a roll, please, madam clerk? >> Miss Barrow? >> Yes. >> Miss Bford? Yes. >> Mr. Chapel? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Haney? >> Yes. >> And Mayor? >> Yes. Mr. Chapel, do you have anything you'd like to talk about? You got one minute. >> One minute. >> No, you take as long as you thing I got to talk about is this Saturday we're having a uh community yard sale again the second Saturday of the month we're
trying to do it the same time I do have some uh vendors coming out there we had uh 58 people show up last time for buying stuff the other thing we have to talk about is the pig roast is uh up and
going uh it'll be the 1 of se yeah yeah 1 of September uh it's a cover dish a fair with um we're supplying the pig. So, >> and it's at 5:00 in the afternoon. >> Where is the yard sale at, Mr. Chapel?
>> It's underneath the pavilion out here at at the sports park. >> We have we have 16 17 stalls out there that are 10 by 20. And uh there's no charge, but that's what you get to put
your yard sale stuff in. 16 by 20. >> Yeah. Anyway, it's between the posts. >> That's it. Yes, sir. I've got one issue. I've seen a couple times, well,
several times recently with the Peak Park at Bart Lake boat launch. The Peak Park trailers rented out people's occasions, their functions and so on and so forth. >> But the issue I've seen is with the
parking >> if you go down there while somebody's having a >> one of their functions >> and if you got a boat that's already in the water, >> you can't get out because you can't get a damn boat >> on the trailer. It's a racket.
>> I kind of have a solution. >> Park on the grass in front of the building. >> Well, me and Tony talked about that before. Why can't that? It might be a good idea if they could put some of the crushed asphalt down for parking as far as that goes,
but even on top of that, there's there's still not enough room for get 20 cars down there. It's going to clog the whole thing up. >> Okay. >> My suggestion is if they would park at the sports complex that side is >> and walk down the hill >> pavilion or they could shuttle themselves back or whatever they want to
do, >> but have some kind of limit on how much parking can be done. >> Actually, John, that's a good idea. Park across the street. >> Is there a way to limit people's parking in that park when they're >> What if you put signs up for vote voters only or something in some of the
>> Yeah, but if when you rented the when you rented the building, they gave you a letter saying parking will be across the street, it'll resolve it. >> Theoretically, >> well, yeah, you know, but you're right. It would. >> Mr. Summerland,
>> what do you think? I don't know how we services we can't >> what about fire capacity that play a role in such >> not building you're right John as far the fire department. If they obstruct the building, then it will be a violation of
the fire code. But you're right. I've been down there and there's a lot of people parked there and they block that building. >> Yeah. >> Maybe charge a $50 deposit, $100 deposit. If you >> 300 for parking in front of the hydrant. >> If you park nice, you get your deposit
back. If you don't, you get charged that >> I think that if you notify them when they rent the building, they need to park across the street that most people probably confirm and do that. I think they would. Some won't, but some might. >> I'd like to see it myself.
>> Yeah. Well, it it as an extension of what you're saying, Mr. Chapel, he could tell you that it doesn't matter what we've done over there. Nice. They damage it. We put those picnic tables in and they
destroying them right now. Every night they go over there and they start uh doing whatever it is they do over there. Chapel left his trailer over there and they try to use the wheel chalk to bust the lock off the trailer. It's just the
nature of human beings I guess today. No one cares apparently. But we'll look into it, John. That's all I can tell you, man. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Miss Barl, >> I have one thing, Mr. Song. I got the copy of the email that was sent from the
state attorney's office about what I requested on the 15th meeting. And this states in here any criminal complaints and I ask for any complaints. >> Well, they only get criminal complaints. >> Well, >> their office only deals with >> Well, there's no way that they can say
that they don't have complaints over there because I know he I don't remember his name when I was in there and he said that there was he had ethics complaints. >> Quite a few of them. >> Okay. I I can reward the request and see
if they'll give me civil complaints, but but >> is it all public record? >> It should be all public record, but I don't know how they're how they consider un unfiled charges. In other words,
somebody comes in and swears out a complaint and then the state's attorney's office decides not to file a criminal charge on it. >> So, pretty much just didn't want to hear the other. >> I don't I don't know how they track that. Chief, what would you call it?
>> Well, how it works for us even if it's unfounded still. >> Well, and that's what I thought too when I when I got that response back. So, They would be the same way whether it's
unfounded or not. >> I'll spin it a little different >> because I know they are they are there. I know they got them and I know they have them and and I would like to I'm going to pursue this and I have to go down there myself.
>> I I'll give it a different twist. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Barl. Kate, what you got? Nothing. I have nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming. I appreciate you.