►
From YouTube: (2021) 02-09 - Called Council Meeting (Zoom)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
High
esteem
to
to
do
the
business
that
the
people
have
asked
us
to
do
in
their
steed,
please
watch
over
us
make
us
be
with
us
as
we
make
decisions
that
are
pleasing
in
your
sight,
lord
allow
us
to
to
act
in
a
professional
business
like
manner
always
knowing
that
we
have
have
you
ahead
of
us
in
in
watching
over
us,
and
we
thank
you
for
listening
to
our
prayer,
amen,
I'll,
call
this
meeting
to
order,
I'm
going
to
do
a
voice,
roll
call,
if
you
don't
mind,
larry
bradley.
B
A
D
D
A
Right
I
see
lee,
I
need
a
motion
for
the
approval
of
the
agenda.
Please.
E
B
E
F
G
A
That
passes
moving
to
the
approval
of
the
consent
agenda,
this
from
the
january
5th
and
12th
council
meetings,
the
19th
planning,
commission,
hpc,
downtown
development
authority,
sun
memorial
airport
fiber
pricing
and
the
approval
of
sanitary
sewer
system
improvements
at
the
alcove
river
outfall.
I
need
a
motion
for
approval.
Please.
A
G
A
Norma
garrett,
tyler
gregory,
aye
nathan,
little
yeah
lee
malcolm
hi,
that
passes
motion
carries
moving
to
the
public
forum.
We
have
nobody
who's
signed
up
by
five
o'clock
online.
Did
we
have
anybody,
show
up
downstairs.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
We'll
go
straight
to
the
public
hearing
for
the
variance
at
1360
armistice
circle,
mr
kelly,.
D
Yes,
sir,
thank
you,
mr
mayor.
Sorry,
this
this
request,
as
we
discussed
last
week,
is
to
allow
for
a
front
entry
garage
in
a
neighborhood
that
basically
developed
with
all
front
entry
garages
in
the
past.
The
applicant
is
requesting
to
do
so
due
to
the
standards
of
the
neighborhood
that
they're
they're
going
to
build
this
new
house
in
and
in
deference
to
our
new
ordinance
that
requires
side
and
rear
entry.
H
No
questions,
mr
mayor,
but
I
need
to
have
the
record
note
that
I'm
recused
on
that
matter.
I
represent
mr
armistead
on.
A
I
don't
see
her
now.
I
think
this
might
be
a
slam
dunk.
So
I'm
just
going
to
proceed.
Is
there
anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
in
favor
or
against
the
variants.
A
This
was
table
table
from
last
month's
meeting
on
january
12th,
mr
kelly
presented
the
applicant's
request
for
variants
of
the
property
at
603
and
606
alcovey
street,
to
reduce
the
size
of
two
proposed
lots
in
the
proposed
subdivision,
which
is
currently
zoned
r1a,
with
conditions
hereby
requesting
a
variance
of
article
7,
section
700-1
table
11
lot
size
of
the
of
the
zoning
ordinance
for
603
and
606
alcovey
street.
The
applicant
is
dwayne
wilson
of
pinehurst
homes.
A
The
lodge
had
conformed
to
the
previous
rezone,
which
was
granted
with
conditions
the
designer
has
had
over
two
and
a
half
years
to
modify
this
design
for
conformance.
This
was
approximate
thirty
percent
reduction
in
lot
size
at
that
time.
From
fourteen
thousand
to
ten
thousand
square
feet,
the
zoning
ordinance
clearly
states
all
lots
and
r1a.
Zoning
must
have
a
minimum
of
10
000
square
feet.
The
recommendation
was
to
the
recommendation
was
to
deny
I'll
open
the
floor
to
council
members
for
discussion.
H
B
Can
you
elaborate
a
little
bit
on
your
reason
to
want
to
deny
this?
I
mean
this:
is
the
person
that's
most
of
the
likes
would
be
in
compliance.
It
would
just
be
two
with
a
small
variance,
not
a
significant
variance
on
those
two,
but
we
have
a
property
owner.
That's
willing
to
you
know
I
guess
build,
or
you
know
put
his
money
out
there
for
this.
B
H
Well,
I
don't
think
the
harm
is
this:
it's
not
so
much
a
general
harm
as
it
is.
If
you
look
at
what
the
standards
are
in
section,
14
30.6,
if
we
go
down
to
the
fifth
one,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
take
into
consideration
is
whether
this
the
special
circumstances
surrounding
the
request
for
variants
are
not
the
result
of
acts
by
the
applicant,
and
I
think
that's
exactly
what
we
have
here.
H
He's
created
the
problem
and
if
we
say
to
him
well
you
can
do
this.
Then
the
next
person
who
comes
along
that's
created
the
problem
themselves
by
changing
drastically
the
size
of
a
lot.
I
don't
think
you
could
constitutionally
deny
it
to
that
person.
A
fine
example
of
that
would
be
the
application
that
we
had.
H
That
was
pulled
with
regard
to
the
locks
over
on
boulevard,
and
so
my
concern
is
that
if
you
start
approving
these
you're
going
to
run
into
a
due
process,
a
substantive
due
process
and
an
equal
protection
argument
from
any
other
applicants-
and
I
just
don't
think
we
would
be
able
to
defend
it
so
and.
F
B
And-
and
I
understand
that-
and
I
I
I
may
vote
different
from
the
remainder
of
the
council-
that's
right.
I
wanted
to
get
a
further
clarification
because,
as
I
look
at
various
requests
that
come
to
us,
most
of
the
various
requests
to
us
are
to
enable
the
applicant
to
do
more,
with
less
and
generally
speaking,
that,
though
the
you
know,
as
we
look
at
variances,
whether
it's
the
variance
to
you
know
change
the.
B
If
you
look
up
the
streak
there
to
the
legends
where
we
approved
variances
there
to
allow
houses
to
be
closer
to
the
street
than
what
our
code
would
call
for,
it
was
because
that
was
what
people
needed.
That's
what
the
applicants
needed
to
do
their
thing.
You
know
it
was
not
something
you.
Otherwise,
if
you
look
at
the
vine
street
application
which
we
approved,
you
know
earlier,
they
like
the
profile,
that's
8
500
square
feet
minimum
and
that's
so
they
could
get
as
many
houses
as
they
wanted
to
in
their
particular
large
subdivision.
B
I
just
think:
that's
I
guess
what
I'm
what
I'm
looking
for
here
and
I
understand
what
mr
dickson
said:
I'm
not
disagreeing
with
it.
What
I'm
looking
for,
though,
is
to
understand
if
a
person
asks
for
variance,
if
we're
not
going
to
approve
of
any
variance,
that's
there
for
the
purpose
of
having
the
applicant,
then
there's
no
reason
to
have
variances.
G
B
That's
the
large
majority
of
them.
That's
what
they're
there
for
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
now
I
try
to
raise
this
in
our
planning
meeting,
because
I'm
not
sure
I
understand
the
process
that
we're
going
through
if
a
person's
asking
for
variance
they're
asked
asking
for
change
to
what
our
code
calls
for
in
order
for
them
to
do
what
they
want
to
do
with
that
piece
of
property
and
if
we're
never
going
to
allow
that
to
happen
that
cuts
down
drastically
on
the
number
of
variants.
You
know
we
should
even
be
looking
at
that.
A
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you.
I
have
that
noted.
This
will
be
a
voice,
vote,
yay
or
nay,
to
deny
the
motion.
B
Of
the
question
yeah,
that's
one
other
question
is:
does
anyone
from
planning
be
the
sadie
or
brad
have
any
comments
on
this.
I
A
A
Safety
and
bread
are
not
included
in
this
discussion.
This
would
be
either
mr
kelly
or
a
member
of
the
planning
commission.
E
I
just
I
have
a
question
about
the
validity
of
the
variants
reading
back
to
some
of
the
stuff
from
2018.
E
If
it
was
never
planted
and
recorded,
and
there
was
no
plan
done,
can
we
even
consider
a
variance
for
this.
A
J
Yes,
yes,
we
can.
You
can
consider
this
variance.
This
is
paul
speaking.
You
can
consider
this
variance,
but
there
was
no
plot
done
back.
Then
there
are
some
conceptual
site
plans
done,
but
it
is
appropriate
for
you
to
consider
this
variance,
taking
into
account
the
various
factors
that
our
zoning
ordinance
lays
out
to
be
considered
when
voting
on
a
variance
which
are
those
that
mr
dickinson
just
referenced,
and
I
think
he
specifically
referenced
number
five.
J
A
E
A
F
F
I
A
Nathan
little
yeah
lee
malcolm
is
abstaining
motion,
carries
to
deny
the
variance.
A
D
A
A
Go
on
see,
wait.
We
have
six
to
one,
I'm
sorry
paul.
A
Any
opposed
any
oppose
motion
carries
unanimously
moving
to
the
application
of
beer
and
wine
sales
at
m
s.
Food
mart
is
the
application
in
order.
Mr
rosenthal.
J
Yes
mayor,
this
application
for
package
sales
of
beer
and
wine
is
in
order.
A
C
G
A
J
Thank
you
mayor.
This
is
an
ordinance
to
amend
chapter
62
of
the
code
of
ordinances
regarding
the
city's
offenses
and
miscellaneous
provisions
and
for
other
purposes
the
mayor
of
the
council
here
by
ordained
as
follows:
article
1
chapter
62,
article
1,
section
62,
3
of
the
code
of
ordinances,
is
hereby
amended
by
adding
the
following
section
in
its
entirety:
section
623
possession
of
marijuana.
It
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
to
possess
one
ounce
or
less
of
marijuana
within
the
corporate
limits
of
the
city
of
monroe.
J
Any
person
found
guilty
violating
this
section
shall
be
subject
to
the
penalty,
as
provided
in
section
111,
provided
that
any
defendant
charged
with
possession
of
one
ounce
or
less
of
marijuana
shall
be
entitled
on
request
to
have
the
case
against
such
defendant,
transferred
to
the
court
having
general
misdemeanor
jurisdiction
in
the
county,
wherein
the
alleged
offense
occurred.
Article
two
all
ordinances
or
parts
of
ordinances
in
conflict
here
with,
are
hereby
repealed.
Article
three
this
ordinance
shall
take
effect
from
and
after
its
adoption
by
the
mayor
and
the
council
of
city
monroe
georgia.
F
Got
a
question
for
rosenthal:
is
there
a
fee
attached
to
the
marijuana
the
one
ounce
of
but
low.
J
Yeah,
the
the
the
ordinance
we
cleaned
up
the
ordinance
but
left
the
penalty
provision,
the
same
as
it
was
previously.
What
that
does
is
it
refers
to
the
penalties
provision
of
our
code
of
ordinances,
which
is
in
section
111.
J
That
being
said
in
the
city
of
monroe
municipal
court
in
my
office
as
solicitor,
we
have
generally
been
offering
on
negotiated
pleas
for
possession
of
marijuana
less
than
an
ounce,
simply
the
payment
of
a
fine
payment,
and
usually
that
fine
has
been
750
unless
there
are
aggravating
circumstances
or
extenuating
circumstances,
one
way
or
the
other.
So
the
answer
to
your
question
is:
is
the
maximum
allowed
penalty
still
remains
as
all
other
ordinances,
a
thousand
dollars
maximum
and
six
months
confinement?
J
However,
standard
practice
with
my
office
as
prosecutor
solicitor
for
monroe,
has
been
to
eliminate
the
request
for
confinement
for
possession
less
than
announced
charges
and
to
simply
be
a
fine
payment
of
750
on
average.
Now,
sometimes
there
are
more
extenuating
circumstances
and
our
requests
are
negotiated.
Please,
for
the
maximum
of
a
thousand,
sometimes
there's
or
aggravating
circumstances,
sometimes
there's
stimulating
circumstances
and
the
fine
recommendation
may
be
less.
J
That
is
a
policy
decision
for
you
and
your
other
eight
elected
compatriots
to
address
and
decide.
Mr
garrett,
that's
not
up
for
me.
H
I
I
agree
with
mr
garrett.
Absolutely
I
do
too.
It
is
something
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
about,
and
this
just
comes
from
my
experience
when
I
was
a
municipal
judge
here
and
in
a
couple
other
cities,
the
fines
in
relation
to
the
offense
and
particularly
back
then
because
they
were
even
more
because
a
lot
of
folks
are
being
prosecuted
under
the
state
statute,
and
I
was
seeing
people
get
fined,
14
dollars
to
me.
That's
just
ridiculous
and
I
do
think
at
some
point
in
the
not
too
distant
future.
A
H
A
That
we,
we
went
this
route
because
when
mr
dickinson
was
the
the
judge,
you
start
looking
at
things
like
long-term
trying
to
get
a
job.
Do
you
have
a
do?
You
have
a
record?
You
would
rather
keep
this
off
a
record
but
use
it
as
a
as
an
ordinance
violation.
So
that's
the
step
down
that
we're
taking
now.
J
The
reason
just
to
be
clear.
The
reason
why
this
is
before
you
tonight,
because
this
came
up
last
month.
This
is
simply
a
cleanup
of
our
ordinance.
There
was
a
technical
defect
in
our
ordinance
and
we
were
cleaning
it
up
that
we
thought
this
had
gone
through
in
a
cleanup
about
three
years
ago
and
for
some
reason
this
cleanup
got
missed
about
three
years
ago,
when
we
did
some
other
cleanups
of
various
ordinance
violations.
J
So
all
this
is
the
only
purpose
that
this
is
solving
is
a
technical
defect
cleanup.
I
would
suggest
that
that
staff
get
together
and
talk
about
if,
if
your
directive
is
as
mr
dickinson
and
mr
garrett
have
suggested,
that
prior
to
that
happening,
that
staff
get
together
and
and
provide
some
input
and
opinions,
because
I'm
quite
certain
that
chief
watts
may
have
some
comment
or
input
on.
You
know,
suggestions
and
recommendations,
but
you
guys
are
the
policy
decision
makers.
J
A
few
cities
in
the
city
of
in
the
state
of
georgia
have
done
this
effort
to
quote-unquote
decriminalize
marijuana,
still
technically,
there's
a
state
charge
and
still
technically
there's
a
federal
charge
that
could
be
had,
but
in
terms
of
the
practical
realities
of
what
we
call
writing,
ordinance
tickets
or
just
tickets
for
weed.
J
I
I
have
a
quick
follow-up
question
for
paul,
so
if
we,
if,
as
a
city,
we
did
that
flat
fine
and
lowered
it,
if
extenuating
circumstances
happened
with
someone
who
needed
to
be
charged
whatever,
then
you
could
go
to
the
state
statute
or
the
federal
statute?
Is
that
correct
or
would
that
have
to
be
a
state
offense
in
some
way.
J
Well,
we
couldn't
go
to
the
federal
statute,
but
the
discretion
to
charge
a
a
violator
of
any
alleged
crime
is
always
rests
with
the
officer.
So
the
officer
has
the
authority
to
bring
charges
under
the
state
statute
if
they
want
to
it's
a
different
path.
It's
a
different
path
of
criminal
procedure
to
follow
and
it
would
not.
It
could
still
be
in
our
court
if
they
bring
the
state
charge,
but
usually
the
officer
has
discretion
or
does
have
discretion
there
on
the
side
of
the
road.
J
If
you
will
to
either
write
the
ticket
or
take
the
ticket
under
the
state
charge
and
bring
it
to
monroe
municipal
court
write
the
ticket
under
the
city
ordinance
and
bring
the
charge
monroe
municipal
court,
or
they
can
write
the
ticket
under
the
state
charge
and
take
a
warrant
and
take
it
up
to
superior
court.
J
So
that
discretion
is
with
the
chief's
officers
and
he
can,
you
know,
certainly
provide
more
input,
and
I
would
strongly
encourage
before
any
major
decisions
made
for
there
to
be
some
discussion
and
communication
with
the
chief
and
and
his
crew
on.
You
know
positives
and
negatives
of
of
pursuing
this.
This
concept
of
you
know
a
lower
flat
fee,
fine
for
marijuana
possession
less
than
an
hour
city
ordinance.
A
On
the
last
agenda
item,
which
was
which
was
the
application
of
beer
and
wine.
A
Oh,
absolutely
and
and
we'll
do
that,
we'll
get
with
with
logan
he'll
get
with
with
the
team
and
chief
watts
and
and
team
from
the
pd,
so
that
that
will
obviously
be
in
discussion
immediately.
But
regarding
this
tonight
was
just
first
reading
second
reading,
because
we
had
to
have
the
cleanup
and
then
we'll
move
forward
with
the
next
step.
A
Hearing
none
we
will
revisit
that
next
month
and
then
we
need
to
move
to
the
renewal
of
property
and
casualty
insurance.
It
was
presented
last
week
for
staff's
recommendation
to
approve,
but
mr
savelle
froze
during
the
discussion,
and
I
don't
think
we
finished
it-
how
we
should
have
so.
A
Mr
bob
seville,
with
seville
risk
management,
explain
the
renewal
dates
for
the
property
and
casualty
insurance
for
2021..
The
total
premium
is
404
347.,
which
is
only
four
hundred
thirty
four
dollars.
More
than
last
year,
he
stated
the
coverage
has
moved
from
state
national
to
travelers,
generating
significant
savings
in
an
insurance
market
where
most
cities
and
counties
are
seeing
higher
premiums
and
deductibles.
A
During
the
time
after
mr
seville's
presentation,
the
video
froze
and
the
audio
wasn't
clear,
and
we
failed
to
get
a
vote
for
recommendation
to
full
counsel
from
the
committee
for
approval
of
the
renewal
of
the
property
and
casualty
insurance
coverage.
Therefore,
it's
been
moved
to
council
for
full
approval
tonight
in
independently
I'll
entertain
a
motion
move.
A
C
E
G
D
A
Moshe
carries
unanimously
and
thank
you
and
then
we'll
move
to
the
mayor's
update.
The
only
thing
I
have
again
just
trying
to
keep
everybody
updated
on
on
that.
Our
numbers
are
down
a
little
bit
this
month
this
week,
which
is
really
really
good.
The
hospitals
finally
get
a
little
bit
of
breathing
room.
A
F
Sir,
I
got
a
question
for
logan
last
week.
He
was
saying
that
he
don't
check
on
the
people
being
charged
early
for
their
cable
bill.
F
K
Yeah,
so
the
bills
were
not
charged
with
the
new
cable
tv
right
until
january
1.
we'll
go
through
and
audit
some
of
those
bills.
I
just
pulled
up
one.
Let's
say
the
bill
date
was
12
30
of
20
and
the
due
date
was
113..
K
It
was
it.
K
F
K
Yeah
we'll
continue
to
audit
that
we'll
pull
out
a
bill
or
two
from
each
billing
cycle
and
make
sure
that
that's
not
the
case.
F
C
Oh
time
in
real
quick,
mr
garrett,
I'm
not
aware
of
anyone
getting
charged
early,
but
I
will
look
into
that
like,
like,
I
said,
we'll
pull
bills
from
each
cycle.
It
should
be
every
bill
that
was
billed
with
a
january
date
a
january
bill
date,
because
those
rates
were
approved
in
the
2021
operating
budget,
which
went
into
effect
january
1..
F
F
So
I
don't
know
about,
we
haven't
been
charging
people
because
I
know
clearly
I
would
show
it.
I
can't
speak
for
everybody,
but
I
definitely
speak
for
mine
and
I
did
have
someone
call
me
ask
me
about
later,
so
I
know
that
we've
been
charging
people
the
complete
price
of
january,
even
though
they
haven't
used
the
whole
month
of
january.
A
So
thanks
covid
vaccinations:
we've
got
a
meeting
tomorrow
morning
with
carl
mara,
independent,
the
national
guard
as
well.
So
we'll
know
more
about
vaccinations.
A
We're
doubling
up
on
those,
though,
as
cvs
and
walgreens
program
has
rolled
out
so
we're
on
the
right
path
and
looking
good
and
just
ask
you
to
encourage
your
constituents
to
maintain
proper
hygiene
proper
spacing
and
and
if
they
choose
to
wear
a
mask.
It's
appreciated.
I
need
a
motion
to
adjourn.
Please.