[0:02] How you doing? >> I'm good.

[0:04] » Danny Danny called me that one day this week or I guess

[0:08] maybe Friday or Saturday, I don't know. And he just showed up and I called him

[0:13] back. And I called his voice and I'm like

[0:17] Who is this? He said Danny. So I thought it was Danny and so he got so much going

[0:21] on. He was calling me about a car to pick up.

[0:23] » [laughter] >> And I think what was he calling you

[0:25] about? >> A car somebody was selling a right-hand

[0:28] drive mail truck. I don't know. I was like

[0:32] I thought it was Danny. >> [laughter]

[0:35] » Oh yeah, he'll be trying to call him at work. He'll call me.

[0:40] » Yeah, I was really thinking it was Danny.

[0:46] » [clears throat] >> Is that your Pepsi?

[0:48] » Yeah. >> Is it really?

[0:49] » Yeah, I'm thinking it was Yeah, cuz she's not going to be here. So I figured

[0:52] I better get some extra space.

[1:09] I went to the eye doctor today. I had my eyes done. I can't I can see y'all and I

[1:14] can't see y'all now. >> That's probably a good thing.

[1:19] » I need you ready?

[1:24] I already you ready?

[1:32] » Thank you for being here tonight. We'll call this meeting to order.

[1:36] We do have a quorum present and we will start with invocation by council member

[1:41] Natalie Cox. >> Good evening everyone.

[1:46] Dear Lord, we thank you for this day. We thank you for the sunshine. We also

[1:49] thank you for the rain, Lord. We thank you for all those that turned out today

[1:52] that have a concern about the city, Lord. I ask that you Um, that we make

[1:56] the right decision and what's pleasing to this town, Lord.

[1:59] And I ask that you be with our children, our school teachers as everybody starts

[2:02] back to school to tomorrow. In your name we pray. Amen.

[2:05] » Amen. >> [clears throat]

[2:08] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

[2:13] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with

[2:20] liberty and justice for all.

[2:34] » Okay.

[2:38] Now is our time for public comment. I know we got a lot of people here that

[2:42] may not come to council meetings all the time, so I just want to make sure that

[2:47] everybody knows exactly how how these things go.

[2:51] Um, you know, city council meetings are basically purpose is for council to

[2:56] discuss and act on issues in a public setting. So we're this meeting is for us

[3:01] to be talking with each other. Um, we do offer we're not required to offer time

[3:06] for public comment, but we do cuz it's a courtesy to our citizens.

[3:10] Um, our ordinance allows for a total of 20 minutes, but we going to let

[3:14] everybody speak that signed up. Um,

[3:18] most cities or a lot of cities allow only citizens who live inside the city

[3:21] limits to speak, but we going to let everybody talk.

[3:25] Um, everybody's got 2 minutes to make comments.

[3:29] It's um, it's not a question and answer time, so be organized and be ready.

[3:35] Please state your name clearly and when you begin. Miss Lewis, right there, wave

[3:40] your hand. Miss Lewis will have a timer that will sound at the 2-minute mark.

[3:44] Um, when when your 2 minutes are up, please

[3:49] respect the citizens coming after you and on their time and stop when the

[3:53] alarm sounds. If you have notes that you want to

[3:56] have attached to anything, you can leave those with Ms. Lewis. So, Ms. Lewis, we

[4:01] will ask you to call our citizens and we will

[4:06] continue on. >> Ms. Jeanie Browning.

[4:17] » Good evening. >> Good evening.

[4:18] » Uh pleasure to see you again.

[4:21] Um I am simply giving you a report about what I said last time.

[4:27] Uh I was talking about the planning stages of some events in Clinton

[4:32] and uh we had our annual third annual Art Clinton 2026 Festival.

[4:39] Uh that entailed 119 works of art, 42 artists from 12 cities

[4:50] on display in 17 Clinton businesses. We gave away $2,000 in cash awards given

[4:58] to 13 exhibiting artists. We had 28 painters in the outdoor art

[5:03] battles consisting of 11 adults and 17 children on the square.

[5:09] And we also had five sales of artworks during the festival.

[5:12] So, artists and visitors came to our city from Laurens, Greenwood, Whitmire,

[5:19] Mount Holly, Honea Path, Lake Greenwood, Donalds, Union, Rock Hill, Spartanburg,

[5:26] and Anderson. Uh

[5:29] I want to invite you to our next event. You have this in your

[5:34] papers already passed out. Uh you have the information for the

[5:39] gallery on one side. On the reverse, there's an invitation.

[5:44] Uh Uh you're invited to the Clinton Art Gallery's next themed

[5:50] exhibit for the month of August. It is Let's Face It. It's a portrait exhibit

[5:55] of faces, and over 20 artists have already

[5:59] submitted work, and I have more coming this week.

[6:02] We have both traditional artwork, realistic, and also abstract and

[6:07] whimsical. The reception is August the 11th

[6:11] at 6:30 p.m. at 113 North Broad Street, and you're all invited.

[6:16] Uh thank you, Mr. Smith, for attending our last reception for Art Clinton. Your

[6:21] presence was noted and appreciated. I appreciate your support, and uh

[6:27] hope to see you soon. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[6:32] » Miss Sarah Whitman.

[6:44] » Hello. Um my name is Sarah Whitman, and I'm

[6:47] going to be discussing uh Cambridge Farms development. So, I live at 23

[6:52] Cambridge Road, which is the first house uh right on the corner when entering the

[6:57] Mary Oaks neighborhood. Um and there is no doubt that this um developmental plan

[7:03] will bring much more additional traffic, noise, and safety concerns to Highway

[7:07] 56, which will directly affect my house and my family. The SCDOT had previously

[7:14] reviewed a traffic study and required right turn lanes at both proposed

[7:18] entrances, and that an additional right of way may be needed.

[7:22] If this development is passed, how does the city of Clinton plan to take the

[7:27] SCDOT findings into consideration? Who will be funding the necessary

[7:32] improvements? On May 8th, 2025, the Laurens County

[7:36] senior planner wrote that two accesses for over 500 homes would be a traffic

[7:41] nightmare inside and outside of the project.

[7:45] The plan before the city today has the same two access points, but now includes

[7:50] a commercial parcel, which would bring even more cars to the area. If traffic

[7:55] and entrances were an issue then, the problem will only increase with this new

[7:59] proposal. Has the city completed a new traffic study to include how a

[8:04] commercial parcel will affect traffic? Motorists already go well beyond the

[8:08] speed limit on Highway 56. Are there plans to reduce the speed limit coming

[8:13] into this stretch of highway from both directions?

[8:16] Or to add speed patrols to help ensure the safety of the families who already

[8:21] live and drive this stretch of road daily?

[8:24] Residents deserve to have these questions answered before any new zoning

[8:28] is approved. The city deserves smart and responsible growth, and unfortunately, I

[8:33] do not believe Cambridge Cambridge Farms fits the bill, which is why I

[8:38] respectfully ask you to put safety first and vote no today. Thank you.

[8:43] » Thank you. >> Mr. Ed Gooch.

[8:54] » My name is Ed Gooch, [clears throat] and I come to talk to you in the name of

[9:00] uh safety. I could make this really short and say

[9:04] what she said. But uh

[9:07] I want you council members to consider

[9:12] driving down Broad Street from the north to the south.

[9:16] And coming to that place at the uh southern end Broad Street where the road

[9:20] diverges, and you've got Highway 72 on the right,

[9:24] and you've got Highway 56 on the left. And then I want you to uh continue

[9:29] imagining, if you will, going down 56. Nice four-lane,

[9:35] well-developed, speed limit is uh 35, I believe.

[9:40] And then you come down to the National Healthcare. I think you all know where

[9:43] that is. And the road narrows, four lanes become

[9:48] two lanes. Not only that, the speed limit rises

[9:52] from 35 to 45. Now, I live in the neighborhood across

[9:58] uh the road from 56 on the eastern side of 56, across from the area where

[10:04] development is being proposed. So, um I um get to see a lot of the

[10:10] folks that drive on 56. I get to deal with them. Some of them don't know what

[10:15] uh 45 really means. I I think they read it a little bit higher than that.

[10:21] I only ask you, please, to consider the impact of

[10:27] um a development on the traffic that Highway 56 will bear

[10:33] uh if the development occurs. And I ask you to consider that in your

[10:37] deliberations. Thank you for listening to me.

[10:40] » Thank you. >> Mr. Corey Cannon.

[10:50] » [clears throat]

[10:56] » Council, good evening. My name is Corey Cannon. My wife, Sue, and I reside at

[11:01] 207 Mixon Drive, about 30 seconds from the proposed subdivision.

[11:06] I arrive before you tonight to discuss uh

[11:10] the negative issues that will be caused by this subdivision.

[11:16] The proposed zoning has five zoning categories.

[11:19] An agricultural district, three residential districts,

[11:23] and then a commercial district. If you think we need more commercial

[11:28] district, please walk down the streets in

[11:32] Clinton. We've got ample

[11:35] space for commercial development there.

[11:39] Trafficability. Yes, I believe that the plan supports

[11:44] turn lanes in the Cambridge Farms uh southbound, but northbound don't

[11:49] believe there's any plan uh to widen the road, provide for passing lanes

[11:54] northbound.

[12:00] Density. We have over 2,000 approved building

[12:05] sites in the city of Clinton.

[12:09] Do we really need any more? Emergency services.

[12:16] If this subdivision materializes, we will need to add fire and police

[12:22] protection. Stormwater management.

[12:27] Bush River is inundated with flooding now.

[12:31] When the subdivision is built and the property is denuded,

[12:36] the runoff will be significant. Yes, it can be designed for 100-year flood,

[12:41] but that doesn't mean there won't be a 500-year flood back-to-back.

[12:52] I prefer that the property remain timber land and undisturbed, but that's not

[12:56] within my purview. I just don't support this annexation

[13:03] as it stands. You must make an informed decision, and

[13:08] I'm sure you will.

[13:13] Just think about this. If this subdivision was proposed in your

[13:18] neighborhood, would you be in favor of the annexation?

[13:23] I surely hope not. And in conclusion, I would request tonight, strongly

[13:29] request recommend that you table this action for the following reasons.

[13:37] Would you table till you have all the facts?

[13:41] Secondly, until all council members can be present

[13:45] and cast their vote. Added to litigation has been completed

[13:50] between Lawrence County and the developer.

[13:53] Thank you so much for your time. I do appreciate the process. Might not agree

[13:58] with what's going on, but I appreciate the process. Thank you.

[14:00] » Thank you. >> [clears throat and cough]

[14:04] » Miss Betsy Washam.

[14:11] Hello, I'm Betsy Washam. I live on Nottingham Nottingham Road.

[14:16] And I address you tonight as elected governmental gatekeepers of Clinton.

[14:22] Your job is to guard what comes into Clinton and protect the community from

[14:27] harm. I quote from one of you sitting board

[14:30] members from a recent publication. "We're seeing new housing developments

[14:35] and some industrial expansion, but it's important that we grow in a way that

[14:41] enhances employment opportunities and quality of life for all citizens. Simply

[14:47] adding businesses or residences isn't enough. We need to make decisions today

[14:52] that will set Clinton up for success, not just the next few years, but for

[14:58] future generations." End quote. My question is, will Cambridge Farm

[15:04] enhance quality of life or simply add residencies? Will Cambridge Farm

[15:11] generate a or will it bring a generational

[15:16] type of living or temporary stay? I have been surveying our community and

[15:23] talking personally to residents. I have met, for example, five households

[15:28] who have moved here in the last year to get away from the situation this

[15:33] developer is trying to impose on Clinton. They came here because the

[15:38] Clinton community is not like Greenville, Charleston, Beaufort, and

[15:43] other cities that have unfettered residential expansion. These people all

[15:49] seem to be solid folks who want to put down roots, stay in Clinton, and enhance

[15:54] it. None of them live in houses or on small lots like this developer wants you

[16:01] to agree to. Are we setting Clinton up for success?

[16:05] That's the question tonight. Consider carefully

[16:10] the impact, your legacy. It will be

[16:14] This decision will impact at least a generation out whom each of you may long

[16:21] be gone from. So, I thank you for your time, and I ask

[16:25] that you also consider taking the

[16:29] information and your experience from other housing projects that have gone on

[16:35] in Clinton and applying that to this. Thank you.

[16:39] » Thank you, ma'am.

[16:42] » [clears throat] >> Mr. Tommy Pinson.

[16:55] » Thank you. My name is Tommy Pinson. I live out in Mayeaux.

[16:59] We have been My family's been here for 46 years now, moved up from Georgia.

[17:05] When we came into town, there was no housing available,

[17:10] but plenty of industry. Right around now,

[17:14] we We very little industry. Our streets are empty almost with

[17:19] empty uh buildings.

[17:22] But we got plenty of houses. Any neighborhood you want to go into

[17:26] is empty and has housing available. I ask you to take a good hard look at

[17:33] what we need in the city of Clinton and in here in

[17:37] Lowndes County as far as what is really good for the people here

[17:43] in town. The idea of putting

[17:47] 450 houses into a neighborhood when there's already

[17:52] plenty available just does not seem what we need at this

[17:56] time. The last time I was here, we were

[17:59] talking about if we made everything R1. Now all of a sudden we're talking about

[18:05] R1, R2, R3, and commercial. Sooner or later we have to make a

[18:12] decision. What is really needed for the city? Is it more housing

[18:18] or is it something else where we can provide more for our residents?

[18:23] Thank you. >> Thank you, sir.

[18:26] » Mr. Michael Corley.

[18:38] » Good evening. My name is Michael Corley. I'm a Clinton native, uh but also the

[18:42] deputy director of the South Carolina Environmental Law Project, which is an

[18:46] organization that among other things works statewide to ensure the lawful

[18:50] functioning of land use decisions. The question I'll pose to you all

[18:53] tonight is what does this project mean for the relationship between the city

[18:57] and the county? And I ask that because, of course, this

[19:00] is not the first time we've been presented with this project. It's been

[19:04] before you previously. So, what happened?

[19:06] Well, what happened is the developer made the conscious decision to stop

[19:11] pursuing camp city approval a city process in favor of pursuing county

[19:16] approval and a county process. That was his choice. Developer chose the county

[19:20] approval process. And that gamble did not pay off.

[19:25] Um this subdivision was unanimously denied by Lawrence County Planning

[19:29] Commission. Do you believe that? Unanimously denied. Uh in my line of

[19:32] work, I wish I saw that more often. Um do you know how many projects are

[19:36] proceeding in the county right now? They're everywhere. All of those

[19:38] proceeding with no problem. This one unanimously denied.

[19:41] So what did the developer then do in response to that denial?

[19:45] What he did was sue the county. Sue the county because he didn't agree with the

[19:49] decision. And by doing that, chose to continue the county process. Chose to

[19:54] continue pursuing the county approval by his own choice by filing this lawsuit.

[19:59] That lawsuit, the one that he chose to file, is still pending. Whatever lawyer

[20:04] talk you may hear tonight, whatever kind of obfuscation you may try to hear of

[20:08] the basic facts, look up the docket number in the court of appeals. His case

[20:12] that he chose to file about the county process is still pending. Which means

[20:16] that the county process he chose to pursue is ongoing.

[20:20] So in light of those things, I have to wonder what are we doing here

[20:24] in the room tonight? Is the city really willing to step in

[20:28] and save this developer from the choices he made to pursue the county process at

[20:33] the cost of treading all over the county's authority?

[20:36] There's already an answer to that question though, and you have to look no

[20:39] further than the comprehensive plan that you all just issued. Just went out to

[20:42] the public. Hasn't even had a chance to be effective yet. And that comprehensive

[20:46] plan is supposed to guide the future Clinton, which I am very excited about.

[20:50] But if it's going to guide the future Clinton, we can't ignore it before it

[20:53] even has a chance to take action, which is what is called for tonight. Because

[20:57] what that comprehensive plan says specifically in relation to annexation,

[21:01] okay? Quote, "Coordination with Lawrence County will be critical in managing

[21:06] growth along the city's fringe. Coordination with Lawrence County along

[21:09] the fringe. It also says

[21:12] the comprehensive plan urges a collaborative approach to development.

[21:15] Collaborative approach. It It urges a It says that county coordination is

[21:19] essential. Does the action requested of you today reflect, quote, coordination

[21:23] with the county? Does the action requested of you today reflect a

[21:27] collaborative approach with the county? Clearly it doesn't because if you

[21:31] advance the annexation, you're invalidating the county process, the

[21:35] county approval, that the developer himself chose to pursue.

[21:39] » Thank you, Mr. Corley. >> Respect the county, respect the comp

[21:41] plan, defer to section. >> Thank you.

[21:44] » [clears throat] >> Ms. Teresa Corley.

[21:59] » I'm not as smart as the last Corley, I'll wait to tell you.

[22:02] » [laughter] >> I live in the neighborhood across

[22:05] Highway 56 from the proposed development. I'm very opposed to the

[22:09] development. I realize that Clinton needs to grow, but realistically, is

[22:14] this the right way to go? I've been to every meeting concerning

[22:18] the proposed development. At every meeting, we've heard about

[22:21] their traffic study and how few cars come down Highway 56 in a day.

[22:27] I do not know who or when this study was done. I've lived there 42-plus years and

[22:32] I have never seen a traffic study being conducted. I've also talked to some

[22:37] neighbors and nobody else has seen one happen, either.

[22:40] Today, I decided to do my own traffic study.

[22:43] I sat in a parking lot on Highway 56 for 1 hour, sweating it up, from 12:16 to

[22:49] 1:15 p.m. 444 cars and 37 18-wheelers, a lot of them were from Georgia, passed

[22:57] by. I have a tally sheet right here that

[22:59] I'll gladly share with you. That is a far cry from the count that

[23:04] they have given you. I could tell you that I am thin, young, and beautiful,

[23:09] but we all know it ain't so.

[23:12] Do a traffic study yourself. Don't do it in the middle of the night like they

[23:16] must have done. >> [clears throat]

[23:17] » We want and need growth, but please be considerate of the lifelong residents of

[23:22] this community. I want Clinton to be a place that I tell people I'm from and

[23:26] say it with pride. I always have. Please do what you know is right.

[23:31] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[23:37] » Mr. Nick Nichols.

[23:45] » I want to give you all a copy of the 2019

[23:49] » Just give that to give that to Miss Miss Lewis and we'll she'll pass it out to

[23:53] us. >> There we go.

[23:55] There's plenty of them. Oh.

[23:59] Which I think is still in effect. Um

[24:04] It states in there on wetlands on page uh 21 and 22

[24:12] that uh

[24:15] before any activity takes place on proper property, either the maps or

[24:20] personnel from the Corps of Engineers should be consulted.

[24:26] Because of the position of the city along ridges between two drainage

[24:30] basins, the only area with flood potential are

[24:33] along Bush River and Shell Creek.

[24:37] Controlling this development is

[24:41] the potential dangerous areas would benefit the citizens of Clinton.

[24:47] I think yesterday we had a little over 2 in of rain.

[24:51] And the citizens of Clinton felt

[24:55] development >> [clears throat]

[24:57] » with Shell Creek Manor. I think uh

[25:01] Calvert Avenue got flooded a little bit yesterday.

[25:05] Well, I know it did. We we were out riding after the storm.

[25:09] So, and there's no rooftops down there yet.

[25:15] But, when there's rooftops down there, and you put 500 plus rooftops

[25:22] on Bush River, and Shell Creek dumps into Bush River,

[25:28] then it's going to be a problem. So,

[25:32] before you vote yes,

[25:36] please have this study. Call these folks.

[25:41] And get it done. Thank you.

[25:44] » Thank you.

[25:48] » Miss Charlotte Strickland.

[25:58] » I'm Charlotte Strickland. I'm a native Clintonian, and after much research done

[26:03] by many citizens, I'd like to share some alarming inaccuracies that developer

[26:07] Patrick McNair made at the Planning Commission meeting last month.

[26:10] He walked the commission through a Lexington neighborhood he presented as

[26:14] his own work. A partner and I built this neighborhood, and this is what we did

[26:18] citing it as the model for Cambridge Commons.

[26:21] Pin location on Long Ridge Drive is a Stanley Martin Homes community in

[26:25] Lexington, which Veranda has no affiliation with.

[26:29] According to the Stanley Martin Homes website, they're the developers for

[26:32] Longview subdivision, which Patrick McNair claims is his own.

[26:36] Patrick and his partner once worked for Stanley Martin Homes before starting

[26:40] Veranda. According to the Veranda website, Veranda Homes was founded in

[26:44] 2024, and this is confirmed by the South Carolina Patent Office.

[26:49] Veranda's own website history page makes no claim of founding in 1993 as he

[26:54] stated at the last meeting. They describe partnering with local

[26:58] developers. I suspect that this is what we might get

[27:01] here. As of 2 years ago, they were operating

[27:04] in the red and when he was questioned about that, he skirted around the issue

[27:08] saying that all companies are in the red their first year.

[27:12] But he had previously said they've been in operation since 1993.

[27:16] He went on and on about this being his development. Longview that he claimed

[27:20] this this project was begun in 2015 by Essex Home and was purchased by Stanley

[27:25] Martin Homes in 2020. Patrick Minyard and his partner once worked for Essex

[27:30] Homes. There's no mention of Patrick in Longview's recorded chain

[27:34] of title. I've heard a planning commission member

[27:38] and a and a council member say that people in these surrounding

[27:40] neighborhoods on 56 don't live in the city limits and they don't matter.

[27:45] I don't mean any disrespect to anybody, but I want to remind y'all there's not

[27:49] one department head that works for this city

[27:52] that lives in the city limits. That's including our city manager.

[27:56] Many of them live out of town or even out of the county.

[28:00] That's who's running our city. Of course these citizens matter. These

[28:03] are Clintonians, too. They're our friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Many

[28:07] have lived in this area for 50 or 60 years.

[28:10] They go to church here, they send their kids to school here, they shop here.

[28:14] They aren't commuters who will be living in this development. They will not be

[28:18] leaving Clinton to go to work and then come back home.

[28:22] The Marriott residents buy their power and water from the city and pay 1 and

[28:26] 1/2 times the water that we pay. Our comprehensive plan states that

[28:30] neighborhoods should always reflect established development patterns within

[28:33] the city. States that you are to prevent

[28:36] overcrowding and avoid undue concentration of population and

[28:40] congestion. This project goes against everything in

[28:43] the comprehensive [clears throat] plan. I urge you to vote no, prevent

[28:47] annexation, and against this Veranda project. Thank you.

[28:50] » Thank you.

[28:55] » Ms. Nancy Garrison.

[29:00] » [clears throat]

[29:04] [snorts]

[29:11] » Good evening. My name is Nancy Garrison and I'm here because of experienced

[29:15] first hand what can happen when storm water is not adequately managed during

[29:19] the construction of a large development. Several years ago a subdivision started

[29:23] the process of being built beside my property. Once the land was cleared and

[29:27] the vegetation removed, it didn't take major storm. It was modest rainfall, and

[29:33] sometimes only an inch or two, to send muddy storm water sediment onto our

[29:37] property. South Carolina DHEC, now the Department of Environmental Services,

[29:42] cited that project twice for sediment entering the waters of the state.

[29:46] My family ultimately filed a lawsuit and we prevailed, but I can assure you that

[29:51] no lawsuit ever makes up for months of damage to your property.

[29:55] Prevention is far better than trying to repair the damage afterward. The reason

[30:00] I share that experience is because the same engineering firm that designed that

[30:05] project is involved in the proposed Kinsley development. I am not here to

[30:09] say history will repeat itself, but I'm here to say that my experience gives me

[30:14] every reason to ask this council to carefully examine the storm water design

[30:19] and downstream impacts before moving forward.

[30:22] We also know storm water is becoming a growing regional concern. The state of

[30:27] South Carolina has recognized that rapid development population growth have

[30:31] increased storm water runoff to the point of existing culverts in the

[30:35] northern part of Laurens County are being overwhelmed, requiring major

[30:39] public investment to replace them. They should remind us that growth has

[30:43] consequences when our infrastructure can't keep up with the pace. This

[30:47] project drains toward Shell Creek and ultimately Bush River. Those waterways

[30:52] deserve every protection we can give them. I respectfully ask you to ensure

[30:56] that storm water design, erosion and sediment controls, downstream impact

[31:00] analysis, and all environmental reviews are complete before approving

[31:04] annexation. My experience has taught me one lesson. Once the damage is done, it

[31:10] is too late to wish more questions had been asked beforehand. Thank you.

[31:14] » Thank you. >> [cough and clears throat]

[31:18] » Claire Young? >> Claire Young?

[31:23] » Hey there. Um my name's Claire Young. I live on Young Road. I just relocated

[31:28] back here from Charleston, South Carolina. And um I don't think too much

[31:33] explanation needs to be told as to why I relocated back here from Charleston

[31:37] because they have

[31:40] this problem a hundredfold. Um I just, you know, we I could echo everything

[31:45] that everybody else has said about traffic, about storm water, about where

[31:50] are all these children? 500 new homes, what are they going to go to Clinton

[31:54] High School? Are we going to increase the amount of teachers we have?

[31:57] I just want everybody to think about the quality of life. Um

[32:01] I think our quality of life in Clinton has been

[32:04] wonderful. My family's owned a farm here since 1779.

[32:09] And I would really love for my family in the future to enjoy the same

[32:15] rural life and beauty of this city that I have enjoyed growing up and and so

[32:21] glad and proud to return to. So, I just want you to consider the quality of life

[32:25] for everybody and I appreciate you. I would encourage you to vote no on the

[32:30] Cambridge as well. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[32:36] » Woody Robinson

[32:41] » [clears throat] >> Hello. I am Woody Robinson. I live in

[32:45] Mary Oaks and my husband Shep is speaking after me. Um

[32:49] before Shep discusses some financial projections, he wanted me to share a few

[32:53] things about Veranda. During the past few weeks, Shep has

[32:57] personally visited all of Veranda's current projects in Greenville,

[33:01] Columbia, Fountain Inn, and Grey Hawk market areas.

[33:05] The Veranda projects are typically small, 20 to 50 units/houses,

[33:10] and do not compare at all to what would be required at Cambridge Farms.

[33:15] Veranda has squeezed in as many houses/townhouses

[33:18] as they can in their existing developments.

[33:22] Most of Veranda's developments are infill developments and are not large

[33:26] residential suburban neighborhoods. Foxbank in Grey Court is a large

[33:31] residential development. It's important to note that Veranda is purchasing

[33:36] roughly 30 of the finished lots with plans to build

[33:40] houses on the lots. Veranda did not work on the horizontal lot development.

[33:47] At these projects, Veranda has not done any extensive horizontal development

[33:52] similar to what would be required at Cambridge Farms.

[33:56] Nothing indicates that they have the expertise to successfully manage this

[34:00] type of project, which includes 490 home sites,

[34:04] seven retention ponds, wetlands mitigation, and roughly 2 miles of road

[34:09] construction over hilly, rocky terrain. Carl Haslinger, the CEO of Veranda,

[34:15] seems to be the principal who may have more experience with horizontal land

[34:19] development versus any Veranda employee. Given the fact that Cambridge Farms is

[34:24] significantly larger than any other Veranda project, and that it would

[34:28] require substantial capital to fund, we would have expected Karl to be actively

[34:34] involved. However, Hassinger has not participated

[34:38] in any of the other planning commission, city council, or county council public

[34:43] meetings. Where is Karl? How involved will he be in this project?

[34:49] Who Everanda has the expertise to execute a major project like Cambridge

[34:53] Farms? Thank you to each one of you for your

[34:57] service. I respectfully ask for your vote no tonight. I know the city needs

[35:02] the impact fees, but as Shep will show next, this project will not produce the

[35:07] fees it promises. Please consider shifting the focus to bringing

[35:11] businesses and industries to Clanton to offer jobs to our current residents and

[35:17] those coming to the 22 homes already committed. Thank you.

[35:20] » Thank you.

[35:24] » Shep Robinson.

[35:32] » Uh thank you, Woody.

[35:36] It has been mentioned frequently during this process that the math does not add

[35:40] up. In recent weeks, I've analyzed the math

[35:43] based on the available public information and on reasonable

[35:47] supportable assumptions. I generated two profit loss scenarios.

[35:52] My assumptions include the following. Land development costs of $42 million

[35:58] or $86,000 a lot. >> [clears throat]

[36:00] » These costs are based on the developers stated infrastructure costs at the plan

[36:05] planning commission >> [clears throat]

[36:07] » uh meeting of $30 million plus $2.5 million in estimated land acquisition

[36:11] cost, a $3 million contingency, $6 million in interest carry, and $500,000

[36:18] for various fees. The home building costs are based on

[36:22] published data containing the average building costs per square foot for a

[36:28] standard mid-range home located in South Carolina in 2026.

[36:34] Scenario number one uses the developers estimated selling prices as stated at

[36:39] the PC meeting, which were 300,000 for the R3 homes, 350

[36:44] for the R2 homes, and 450 for the R1 homes.

[36:48] Scenario two uses selling prices based on sales comp and market market data in

[36:53] Clinton. There are no sales comps in Clinton

[36:56] which support the developers estimates. The prices used in this scenario are 245

[37:02] for the R3 homes, 260,000 for the R2, and 350 for the R1.

[37:08] The results of this analysis are staggering. Under scenario number one,

[37:13] which uses the these developers estimated selling costs, the projected

[37:18] loss is 37.9 million dollars. Under scenario two, which uses the more

[37:23] conservative selling prices, the projected loss is 75.4 million dollars.

[37:30] Obviously, the math really does not add up. This project does not make economic

[37:36] sense. Under both of these scenarios, the city

[37:39] of Clinton would suffer financially, and the Clinton community would likely be

[37:43] forced to look at a failed, uncompleted project for many years.

[37:48] I've left copies of my analysis right here for everybody. If anybody wants a

[37:53] copy of my Excel spreadsheet, let me know.

[37:57] Thank you all for your service, and respectfully ask you to vote no

[38:01] tonight. >> Thank you.

[38:03] » Thank you.

[38:05] » [clears throat] >> Ashley Martin.

[38:14] » Hello, my name is Ashley Martin, and I live at 106 Shell Creek Court. I also

[38:20] own the building at 107 East Main Street of Clinton.

[38:25] Um first I'd like to talk about this project in the sense of it's bounced

[38:30] back and forth from the city to the county. And like Ms. Poorly, I've been

[38:34] at almost every meeting. What you said last year when you denied

[38:40] this project was that it had to be R1 only. That is not the project being

[38:46] presented today. The neighborhood around this, including

[38:51] the neighborhood that I live in, has large lots and I know everyone doesn't

[38:56] want a large lot. And it has traditionally built homes.

[39:01] They are spread out. That is not what this community that they plan to build

[39:07] is. 500 homes in one spot is not great.

[39:12] That's plopping another small town on the outskirts of ours.

[39:17] Recently, I've heard multiple people say, "We need affordable housing."

[39:23] And exactly what Shep just said, our median income household income in

[39:29] Clinton is $44,522.

[39:35] Who will be purchasing that as an affordable home if that is what we need?

[39:42] Recently, I listened to Jeff Siegler and sat in a Zoom meeting. He is the Revive

[39:46] Live or Die person. I want to read what he recently posted.

[39:53] He said, "We know what people want, so why don't they get it?

[39:58] Three reasons. One, I think it's the nail on the head.

[40:03] Low standards. Communities say yes to bad projects

[40:08] because they're afraid nothing better will come along.

[40:13] So, they keep accepting less and that's why things keep getting

[40:18] worse. Two, no actions. Plans and studies are

[40:23] worthless without swift implementation. Just as Michael Corley said, with our

[40:29] new plan. No vision.

[40:33] Cities aren't outcome oriented. They're process driven. Every department

[40:40] does the its own thing with no overarching vision of what the

[40:45] place should actually become. Fix these three things and the rest will

[40:51] fall in place. Thank you.

[40:53] » Thank you.

[40:56] » Brenda Stewart.

[41:05] Thank you. I'm a member um a 35-year resident of Mary Oaks and I

[41:09] know many of you. Appreciate your service.

[41:12] The developer keeps telling you and everyone else that the lots need R1

[41:16] size. Size was never the issue with this. R1 requires 70 ft of frontage.

[41:21] He's asking for RS2 and RS3 so he can build on 50. What 50 lots gets him

[41:27] is a lot smaller lot, um but not similar to the ones in the surrounding property.

[41:33] Going from 70 ft to 50 puts about 29% more houses on every foot of road and

[41:38] pipe he has to build. His cost goes down. Nothing gets better for the

[41:43] neighborhood. In 2015 your own planning commission

[41:46] said no and please come back to us with R1. Now he's back with R1, RS2, RS3,

[41:54] commercial, and ag. That's not the same.

[41:57] Also, through a FOIA request, I have reviewed the planning commission

[42:01] training records. Three of of seven members have no proof of the 6-hour

[42:05] requirement and orientation training required by

[42:08] state law in order to sit. No certificate, no transcript. All three of

[42:13] their forms carry signature dates that are not have not yet occurred. October

[42:17] 26th, November 26th, and one was even signed hand signed August 11th, 2028. Go

[42:24] figure. Three of your seven commissioners appear

[42:27] to be out of compliance with the requirements, but they're voting on

[42:30] things as important as this. That seems really wrong.

[42:35] At the July 14th after the [laughter] vote was taken, oh, I'm sorry, and the

[42:39] July 14th vote was taken without an answer to an important question.

[42:43] One of the commissioners asked that that the applicant about a development in

[42:46] Graycourt. You heard about it recently or earlier.

[42:49] That damaged a neighbor's property. Um, when he was asked if that was his

[42:53] property, he said no, but that was an error of omission because standing next

[42:57] to him was a representative from Bluewater Civil Engineering, and they

[43:00] were on that project, and that's what the commissioner meant. I know because I

[43:03] met with him the day before. Um, so I wrote a note and I gave it to

[43:07] the city planner, and I asked him to please let this be a point of

[43:11] clarification before the vote. I went up again and asked him to please do that

[43:15] before the vote. Um, it was not provided to him them until after adjournment. I

[43:20] wonder why. Um,

[43:23] lastly, I am also submitting tonight to the clerk a petition against this

[43:26] development signed by nearly 500 people, all of which are city of Clinton utility

[43:31] customers. Some of us outside the city limits, we actually get to pay more.

[43:36] I saw my bill this week, trust me. Um,

[43:40] this is an important decision and not one you should make lightly. There are

[43:43] loopholes all day long. They're going to try and plug some of those tonight, but

[43:47] there are genuine answers you need to get, and I implore you to please look at

[43:51] your own planning documents and vote no tonight. Thank you.

[43:55] » Thank you.

[44:03] » I believe this is uh, Betsy McKay. >> McKinney.

[44:08] » McKinney.

[44:13] » Thank you for having this hearing. I appreciate it.

[44:17] There've been many concerns, valid concerns expressed, and I won't

[44:21] reiterate on those. I'm just mentioning this from a common

[44:25] sense standpoint. The outline plan, which is all we've had

[44:30] to go on, simply does not

[44:34] add to our neighborhoods the right housing plan.

[44:40] There's simply too many houses planned on too small of acreage, and that simply

[44:45] will not work. There's nothing more sad

[44:49] than a a failed shopping center or failed project.

[44:54] And I encourage you to consider the validity of what's being proposed and to

[45:00] use your wisdom to make the right decision. Thank you.

[45:04] » Thank you, ma'am.

[45:07] » That's all, sir. >> Thank you.

[45:10] Thank you. That concludes all of our folks that have signed up. I appreciate

[45:14] everybody's comments and uh certainly your

[45:21] » [clears throat] >> your passion and your

[45:23] thoughts and the research that's been done.

[45:26] Okay, next on the agenda is the approval of minutes from the July 6th,

[45:32] 2026 council meeting. And um we will

[45:37] entertain a motion to approve those minutes, that's the will of this group.

[45:41] » So moved. >> Have a mo- motion from Mr. Smith, second

[45:45] from Mr. Kirkendall. Um any questions or comments? Any

[45:49] corrections, additions, deletions?

[45:54] Not all in favor, please say I. >> I.

[45:56] » All opposed, no. And [clears throat] the minutes are

[45:59] approved. Okay, we've got two proclamations.

[46:03] Um and one is we're going to proclaim August as

[46:09] Clinton goes back to school month in the city of Clinton.

[46:13] And I'm very thankful for this cuz I got three grandchildren that have been in my

[46:16] house all summer. So I said it's a it's a wonderful day

[46:21] tomorrow. Um

[46:24] also August as connecting cops to communities month in the city of

[46:28] Clinton. And um I'll entertain a motion to make

[46:32] these proclamations if that's the will of this group.

[46:35] » So moved. >> Motion from Mr. Cook, second from Ms.

[46:38] Coxwell. Any questions or comments? If not, all in favor please say I.

[46:45] All opposed [cough and clears throat] no, and we are so proclaimed.

[46:50] Okay, Mr. Medders. >> Thank you, sir. Good evening.

[46:55] Uh the next item on the agenda is for council to consider first reading of an

[47:00] ordinance to amend the city of Clinton zoning ordinance uh single family

[47:04] residence as permitted use in the RM8 zoning district.

[47:10] Um Mr. Blinder discovered um

[47:14] recently that we have two properties two subdivisions Autumn Woods and Copeland

[47:22] Estates that it was originally called. I think it's known as Blossom Meadows now.

[47:28] Um this is up behind the old Har- Blossom Meadows is up behind the old

[47:32] Hardee's uh restaurant on Highway 76. And those were

[47:39] uh permitted for family single family homes in the RH

[47:44] um MH RMH uh zoning and they were assumed that uh

[47:52] possibly that the single family homes were allowed in there with mobile homes.

[47:58] That's what RMH is, the mobile home zoning.

[48:01] So, uh Mr. Lindler has put together uh

[48:05] information to take this RMH zoning and add the single

[48:11] family to it since that's what is actually there now and uh

[48:16] he is here if you [snorts] have any questions uh

[48:20] pertaining to this. >> Okay, thank you. Let's get a motion so

[48:24] we can put it on the floor for discussion.

[48:27] Have a motion from Ms. Walsh. Is there a second from Mr. Kirkendall? Um okay.

[48:32] Questions or comments? >> You all feel

[48:34] » So, I'm a little confused. Now, I know now that you

[48:39] described them when they were there's actually mobile homes in those

[48:43] areas? Is that what I'm hearing?

[48:46] » Right. Originally, Copeland Estates was set up for mobile homes and that's what

[48:51] went there originally. >> And that What was the date of that?

[48:55] » Uh Mr. Kirkendall, that was probably back

[48:58] in 2000s in that neighborhood.

[49:03] » Okay. >> There's two local gentlemen started that

[49:06] up there next to Copeland Plaza. >> So,

[49:09] So, they're in the They're in the city limits.

[49:11] » They are in the city limits. And they were zoned for mobile homes.

[49:17] » So, since we changed our ordinance ordinance of no more mobile homes in the

[49:22] city and I forget when we did that. >> That

[49:25] » These would have been grandfathered in? >> Yes, sir.

[49:27] » Okay. >> Yes, sir.

[49:29] And after that time, uh there were another couple developers came in and

[49:34] wanted to build single family homes there, which that's their single family

[49:38] homes there now. And hence the name was changed to

[49:42] Blossom Meadows. So, we want to clarify and correct the

[49:47] RMH in those areas to allow single family

[49:52] homes in the corresponds with the RMH plus the

[49:57] single-family homes in those two areas now.

[50:02] » That doesn't open us up for any more mobile home stands, what I'm trying to

[50:05] clarify. >> Well, it with it being zoned that, yes,

[50:10] you can put another mobile home there. >> Mhm.

[50:12] » But it's the mobile homes are already in the

[50:16] area. There's not a lot left in Blossom Meadows or Cochran Estates, but with it

[50:21] being zoned that way and having single-family there also,

[50:27] that's the most

[50:29] the best way to handle this situation. >> Were you asking if that changes?

[50:35] » Yes. >> It That It doesn't change that, does it?

[50:37] Like they're they're currently at You're currently allowed to put mobile homes

[50:39] there. >> and it's still zoned and you correct me

[50:42] if I'm wrong. They are. That

[50:47] that the RMH, the mobile homes, will be allowed also with single-family housing.

[50:55] » But But you're currently allowed to do that under the current zoning.

[50:58] » Yes, sir. >> Okay.

[50:59] » I'm I'm totally confused. >> [laughter]

[51:02] » I thought our ordinance was that and I forget when we passed this ordinance,

[51:06] but it's been during my seat on council that we would not in the city limits

[51:11] allow another home mobile home to be put in city Clinton city limits.

[51:17] If there were ones already in place, that was okay, but no more additions.

[51:24] » That's not what this ordinance before you tonight has anything really to do

[51:28] with. >> Okay.

[51:29] » Specifically, what this ordinance is saying is that you currently in your RMH

[51:34] zone, you allow for duplexes. You allow for multi-family residential.

[51:42] You allow for civic buildings and you allow for mobile and manufactured homes.

[51:47] It doesn't say anything about residential single family.

[51:51] In the intent of the of the RMH zone, it says it is intended to accommodate

[51:55] manufactured housing development in concert with conventional dwellings.

[52:01] So, your intent of the or- of the district

[52:05] is to allow for single family and manufactured homes.

[52:09] When you go into the details of the of the section, it doesn't allow for single

[52:13] family homes. So, this would allow for single family homes in addition to the

[52:17] existing uses in that zone as we have allowed apparently in the past.

[52:24] So, this is clarifying the situation. >> So, you're saying as it's written right

[52:30] now, a single family home is not supposed to be there.

[52:32] » We cannot permit, by ordinance, a single family home on a property that's zoned

[52:37] RMH. >> And that's what that's zoned as right

[52:40] now. >> Correct. That would allow us to allow

[52:43] for a single family >> know how many single family homes are

[52:45] there now? >> There are a number in those two areas

[52:48] that Mr. Maddox >> So, how did that take place? I mean,

[52:50] where are we >> I don't know if the ordinance has been

[52:53] changed at a later time after permitting or if those have been permitted in

[52:58] error. I don't I can't determine that. >> So, there's probably as many single

[53:01] family homes as trailers there at this time.

[53:04] » But if you make this change, then all of those

[53:08] technically non-conforming single family homes will become conforming.

[53:14] » My question is, will they be

[53:18] R1s, R2s, R3s inside the mobile home zone?

[53:25] What will they be? >> They would be RMH. So, it'd be the

[53:28] standards that are allowed under the RMH.

[53:30] » So, a single family home can be built and designated as an RMH?

[53:37] » If we vote >> is already designated

[53:39] » I understand that, but I'm saying future homes. We can't do anything about the

[53:43] ones there now, but we have ordinances on the books now and zoning. So, what if

[53:50] another single-family home is to be built in there, what will it follow as

[53:54] far as a single-family home? Will it not have any restrictions at all?

[53:59] » No, you already have restrictions in there that identify your minimum lot

[54:03] sizes, your minimum lot widths, setbacks, height of the structure, all

[54:08] that. >> But, that's for mobile homes.

[54:10] » It's for all of all types of uses. >> [snorts]

[54:14] » Civic uses, um duplexes,

[54:19] all that. >> So, are we contradicting ourselves when

[54:22] we talk about R1 and R2 and R3 and R2S and R3S?

[54:26] » No, sir. This is just a an additional zone that

[54:29] you have available to you.

[54:33] » But, we're building single-family resident homes in there.

[54:37] » There have been residential single-family homes in these two areas.

[54:42] » It says the minimum lot size is 5,000 in that.

[54:46] » Okay. >> Currently.

[54:50] » So, it would be and it says one housing unit per lot permitted. And so, that has

[54:54] to follow the lot permit. >> Correct. One per lot.

[54:59] The only thing we're adding is the allowance for a single-family home to be

[55:03] permitted. >> Is it Am I hearing this correctly? If If

[55:06] y'all are concerned about mobile homes, this

[55:10] this gives each lot in there a chance to be a home instead of a mobile home.

[55:14] » Correct. >> And if we if we vote no on it,

[55:17] technically, they should only put mobile homes in MH.

[55:20] » Or a duplex. >> Or

[55:22] » Or a multi-family. >> Right.

[55:23] » building. >> Correct.

[55:30] » Any other questions? >> [laughter]

[55:39] [clears throat] >> Has everybody had a questions answered?

[55:42] » No. >> Okay.

[55:44] » Keep going. We're okay. We're okay, guys.

[55:46] » Well, I just I I I clearly understand that

[55:49] sometime back we had a ordinance for the city of

[55:54] Clinton that no more additional mobile homes would be be allowed

[56:00] because of the danger, the fire, everything that's associated with the

[56:05] safety. That was That was a clear ordinance that

[56:09] we did. >> I I'm going off memory here,

[56:13] but I want to say you said that for different residential zones

[56:19] because there were some mobile homes in R-1

[56:24] » There were some. >> R-2. If you remove one, they're

[56:26] grandfathered, but if you remove it, you could not

[56:28] » You could go back in with one. That's correct.

[56:30] » But you you have a zone for mobile homes specifically, and that does allow

[56:36] for a mobile home to be brought in if it >> meets the

[56:38] » meets certain age requirements. I think it's five It has to be five years or

[56:41] five >> Five years. That's right.

[56:42] » That's within your mobile home zoning classification. So, you have that, and

[56:46] it does allow for that to be brought in. >> It

[56:49] So, it doesn't allow for old mobile homes to be brought in. It only allows

[56:53] for for the ones that have been five years or

[56:57] » Yeah, and I think what Mr. Kirkendall's remembering is that you did put a stop

[57:01] to bringing mobile homes back into the different residential zoning

[57:04] classification. >> Whether they be new or old.

[57:07] » That's correct.

[57:10] » There's only a handful of these. >> Yeah, how many How many RMH zones are

[57:15] there? Do you know, Mr. Woman?

[57:17] » Well, there's um North route, there's two mobile home

[57:22] parks there. Um

[57:25] I'm trying to remember from memory.

[57:30] There's one down on West Centennial Street.

[57:34] Um And and then those two that were started

[57:37] out there. >> And so that and that this is limited to

[57:42] those areas that are already zoned and then it

[57:47] would be up to this council or future councils if you were to annex something

[57:51] to change the zoning, but under your intention and mine as well,

[57:56] we would not be adding more RVs. >> That's right.

[58:02] But but correct me if I'm wrong, if someone were to come in [clears throat]

[58:06] to the planning commission and want to have another mobile home park, we do

[58:11] have that RMH that they could take a look at.

[58:17] » Right. >> Whether they approved it or not,

[58:19] that's that would be left to the planning commission.

[58:21] » Right. >> Because the zoning is there.

[58:30] » Okay. We're ready to vote on first reading.

[58:34] Okay, all in favor please say aye. >> Aye.

[58:36] » All opposed, no. And the motion carries. Thank you.

[58:46] » Uh next item on the agenda is for council to consider first reading of an

[58:51] ordinance for annexation and of continuous

[58:55] » [clears throat and cough] >> real property in the corporate city

[58:57] limits of Clinton located at the intersection of South Carolina Highway

[59:01] 56 and Cambridge Road identified as Laurens County tax map numbers

[59:07] 617-00-00-028,

[59:14] 617-00-00-015,

[59:20] and 617-00-00-016.

[59:29] » Okay, so this is um recommendation from staff and it comes as approval from the

[59:36] planning commission. Am I correct? >> Okay, so to get this on the table for

[59:42] discussion, I'll entertain a motion. >> So moved.

[59:45] » Have a motion from Ms. Walsh. >> Second.

[59:47] » Second from um Mr. Smith. Okay. Now, oh we're going to get

[59:54] some information to get to start start on that now, so let's go.

[59:58] » Can I Can I add a motion? >> No, no, we we've got this motion on the

[1:00:04] table, yeah. No, we're not we're not going to do that.

[1:00:08] Okay.

[1:00:14] » Good evening. >> Good evening.

[1:00:15] » How are you? Well, um

[1:00:18] I can safely say I'm not here asking for RMH zoning, so I'm a little confused. Uh

[1:00:22] but um My name's Patrick McNair. Um and I

[1:00:28] just thought I'd start out my We've got a presentation here. I think you all

[1:00:31] have it as well on the TV. Um I will try to move through it quickly. I know it's

[1:00:35] already been presented to planning commission. I know they're

[1:00:37] » They're moving, but we've got it. >> Yeah, you can move it You can move it

[1:00:40] that way. We have it in front of us. Um

[1:00:43] » No, we we've got it on our TV. >> it toward toward the audience.

[1:00:47] » There you go. >> We've got little screens up here.

[1:00:50] Um so I thought, you know, I I'd start with

[1:00:53] at least introducing our team. I think I missed doing that in the planning

[1:00:56] commission. Um and you know, I know there's been some questions on um you

[1:01:02] know, our our ability to execute developments or maybe our resume. And so

[1:01:06] I'll just give you a quick introduction of the team. Um so myself, Patrick

[1:01:09] McNair, uh president of Brand Homes uh and co-owner with my business partner

[1:01:13] Paul Passenger, who who is here, by the way. Um and so um

[1:01:18] but uh I I in development My family My my father, uncle, grandfather developed

[1:01:24] in the state of South Carolina my entire life. Um that's what we did.

[1:01:28] Um I moved into sales and then into a

[1:01:30] position of the head of finance. Where for Carl, I ran underwriting,

[1:01:33] reporting, and banking relationships, securing funding for major projects

[1:01:39] like this one for years. Um so I'm very familiar with how to fund

[1:01:43] these and am open to any questions on that. Um cuz that's what I did for a

[1:01:47] long time. Uh

[1:01:50] during that process, secured almost 200 million in bank funding

[1:01:53] which gave Essex the fuel to grow to a top 50 builder in the United States.

[1:01:57] Built by this guy here. Um

[1:02:00] and I'll get more on Carl in a second. Uh at that point, Essex Homes was

[1:02:03] purchased by Stanley Martin, so there was a comment on

[1:02:06] Stanley Martin finishing Longview. That is correct. It was the back end of

[1:02:09] Longview, but it was all developed and started by this group and Essex Homes

[1:02:13] which he owned. Um

[1:02:16] at that time, we were purchased and Carl and I became executives at Stanley

[1:02:19] Martin Homes, which is a national home builder.

[1:02:21] Um which we did learn a lot from. Um I was I had the privilege of becoming the

[1:02:24] youngest executive in Stanley Martin history by two decades.

[1:02:28] Um and uh that was a nod from a president of that company

[1:02:32] that has been in home building his entire life who trusted that I could run

[1:02:37] an operation, run projects like this. Um and we did. Um and actually we took the

[1:02:41] division um that I took over in the market which was here in the Upstate

[1:02:45] from last place in the company to first place in the entire nation in the

[1:02:49] company under

[1:02:51] my leadership. Major projects that I developed ranging

[1:02:55] to 4 to 500 lots. There were some questions on that. Um in a 4-year span,

[1:02:59] Bridgeport, Carlin, and the Hamptons. You can look that up on Stanley Martin's

[1:03:02] website. No, I did not own that company, but I was the division president. I did

[1:03:06] underwrite those. I did stand in front of councils like just like this and

[1:03:10] develop and see those through. Bridgeport's 500 lots in the center of

[1:03:13] Greenville. Very complicated development we executed

[1:03:16] and is now the best-selling neighborhood in the entire Upstate for

[1:03:20] all builders. And we did execute that that well. Um

[1:03:25] projects overseen, underwritten, and obtained funding for Longview is one of

[1:03:28] them. Um

[1:03:30] Yes, we we we were the team that did that.

[1:03:33] Carl Astor, Frank Berry is in the room. He was the head of development for that

[1:03:36] project. Um we were Essex Homes. He owned it, we worked for it.

[1:03:40] Um and Shaping Place, Four Lakes, over 20

[1:03:44] projects in the 100 to 300 to lot range.

[1:03:48] Um also um on the homeowners association

[1:03:51] board here locally. Um and have won builder of the year

[1:03:56] three different times at three different operations.

[1:03:59] Um Look, I don't say that to bang on my

[1:04:02] chest. That's about as far as you're going to hear me talk about me.

[1:04:05] Um you know, I I think there was some

[1:04:07] mention of do we have the resume? And I'm just

[1:04:10] trying to introduce the people you have here so you at least understand cuz you

[1:04:12] don't know us from Adam, right? Um you know, my goal in these meetings,

[1:04:17] my goal in what I've done in the past, um we're local home builder.

[1:04:22] There are two local home builders I can count in this state

[1:04:26] that have the ability to execute a development like this, and we're one of

[1:04:29] them. Um

[1:04:31] and at the end of the day, we're not here to be the rest of the

[1:04:35] guys. I know there was comments, look at the other builders,

[1:04:38] look at what they've done. Our entire mission,

[1:04:42] I'd still be working in a national home builder right now if that's what I

[1:04:45] wanted to do, right? Our our entire mission is to

[1:04:49] bring back the reputation that Essex Homes had,

[1:04:52] which was the local builder of choice that built a better home and did a

[1:04:55] better job. And anyone during that period from 1993 to 2020 in

[1:05:00] West Essex, which Essex Homes was operated and owned by this guy right

[1:05:03] here, that sold homes or was around it will

[1:05:06] confirm that was the mission and the motto. And that's what we're here to do.

[1:05:09] And and so most cities and municipalities I as a walk into

[1:05:12] welcome us with open arms because we are willing to build a better product. We do

[1:05:17] live here. We are local. You don't have to call DC or Texas to go

[1:05:21] and get an answer about it. It's not That's not right. It's right

[1:05:25] here. We're here. And so our goal is to build something better and I'm going to

[1:05:29] show you that in the site plan. Another person I introduced Frank Berry um

[1:05:33] He's been in development since 1992. Um He was the head of development back

[1:05:38] there in the corner if you raise your hand. [laughter]

[1:05:40] Uh he was the head of development for the Longview project and many many

[1:05:43] others. Um started as an engineer. Moved into development in 2005.

[1:05:47] Responsible for the development of over 4,000 lots and oversaw development

[1:05:51] developers on far far more. So yes, like the Foxbank project we are buying lots

[1:05:55] from other not the developer. Most home builders of any size do not develop

[1:05:59] every single project they have. They balance the portfolio, right? We're

[1:06:03] going to develop some. There's some benefit to that, right? In the right

[1:06:06] areas with the right project we're going to do that. Some we have good

[1:06:08] development relationships so we buy lots from them.

[1:06:10] Um He's also the chair of planning

[1:06:13] commission in the town of Lexington and has been part of municipal planning and

[1:06:17] planning commission since 2003. So we do have somebody on our staff very good

[1:06:21] knowledge of what y'all do and by the way

[1:06:23] appreciate what y'all do. I know none of this is easy no matter what questions

[1:06:27] get asked to me no matter what your decision is. I know

[1:06:30] this is all tough and and so I appreciate what you do.

[1:06:34] Um Carl Hassinger um

[1:06:37] Carl started building homes in 1986. He started Essex in 1993.

[1:06:43] He made it through 2008 without any layoffs.

[1:06:48] I don't know another builder that did that.

[1:06:51] We talk about failed developments a company that's going to have a failed

[1:06:54] development

[1:06:58] That guy right there made it through '08 without layoffs.

[1:07:02] That's pretty strong. Um

[1:07:08] He grew Essex to be a top 50 builder in the United States across two states,

[1:07:11] five markets selling over 1,000 homes a year. He did

[1:07:14] sell to Stanley Martin Homes, became a regional president and executive there

[1:07:17] for years. He's experienced in development, home

[1:07:20] building, developmental funding. Fun fact about him, he's actually a nuclear

[1:07:23] engineer, so he's way smarter than I am. So, I don't know why I'm here talking.

[1:07:27] » [laughter]

[1:07:29] » Uh and has been on the state housing board for 4 years. So, um he he has

[1:07:33] given back to the state in that regard. Um

[1:07:37] and so, there's a lot of work that goes into that. And also, I have Heath Davis,

[1:07:40] um 8 years of commercial development across

[1:07:43] two states, um and has been on the economic

[1:07:46] economic, excuse me, development board for Greenwood for almost 3 years.

[1:07:51] Was the chair of government relations for Greenwood.

[1:07:54] He is local. And his team has been developing and

[1:07:57] contracting subdivisions for 30 years. So,

[1:08:01] all that to say, I think I might have failed in introducing our team in

[1:08:04] planning commission. I know there's been a lot of questions around, can we do it?

[1:08:07] Do we know what we're doing? And I at least want to answer that, right? Um and

[1:08:10] so, with that said, um and I'll let Heath say some things at the end of

[1:08:14] this, but I'm going to run you through here and try to get you through a little

[1:08:17] quicker than I had it planned. So, we're at 5 minutes.

[1:08:20] Um all right, Cambridge Farms. Uh we go to the next slide, if you don't mind.

[1:08:24] » [clears throat] >> Location. Uh I believe it will be six,

[1:08:26] right next to the Ingles. Um I think everybody's pretty familiar with

[1:08:29] the location. That's been explained many times. We go to the next slide.

[1:08:33] Um so, the first plan we brought, yes, we we did bring a plan to the city.

[1:08:38] That original plan was 607 lots. Um one of the biggest things that was

[1:08:44] brought up in that meeting was the fact that in the R3 classification we were

[1:08:47] asking for, there was concern on multi-family. And and totally understand

[1:08:50] that, right? I um have no desire to do that here.

[1:08:54] I really we want to make our name off of being the single-family home builder.

[1:08:59] You know, like many builders, we've had to go in and build some townhome

[1:09:01] neighborhoods in certain areas, but that is not our bread and butter. And if you

[1:09:04] look at our backlog of what's coming, not what's on our website,

[1:09:07] you'll see it's mostly stuff like this because that's where we want to make our

[1:09:10] name. We're not going to make our name against

[1:09:13] I'm not going to mention the big national names that are in town.

[1:09:16] Going against them cost by cost, that's not how we do it, right? We have to be

[1:09:20] better. We have to build better. We have to have a better name and have better

[1:09:24] subdivisions, or we won't compete. They build 90,000 homes a year. We'll

[1:09:28] never compete with that, right? So, we have to be better. We have to build

[1:09:31] better. Um

[1:09:33] And so, we didn't have any intention on multi-family. And so, R3S zoning was

[1:09:37] created with you, you know, that's great. We saw that opportunity and and

[1:09:40] R2S. And so, it actually fit the bill even better

[1:09:44] [clears throat] for us cuz we had no desire to go multi-family.

[1:09:47] And so, with that and also on this version that

[1:09:50] we brought you last time, we only had a clubhouse and a pool. Someone pointed

[1:09:53] that out and explain why later. So, we we were

[1:09:57] at the time, you go to the next slide, please. Um at the time, we were

[1:10:03] Well, we are, I guess, in the county and zoned by right. Um we took this site

[1:10:08] plan, which is 5.3 lots, a little less, to the county, which is effectively R1,

[1:10:13] R2, and R3. You can see the color coordination there.

[1:10:16] Um and we did receive a staff approval

[1:10:20] letter that said that we were approved by the ordinances, by the law, publicly

[1:10:25] posted. Um and you guys know the rest of the

[1:10:28] story. Um and if we need questions answered on

[1:10:32] that, I know that you're planning there's some question

[1:10:35] around around me not being an attorney, and I am not. So,

[1:10:39] first admit that. Um we did bring our attorney, Robert Bond's here, was on the

[1:10:43] actual case. Um and so, he's the attorney that

[1:10:46] actually sat in the courtroom, actually knows all the facts. And so, if you have

[1:10:51] any questions on it, our whole team is here to answer

[1:10:53] questions for y'all. So, I just want to bring somebody that's more credible than

[1:10:56] me so on that. Um and so, if we just go uh uh to the

[1:11:00] next slide, go to the next. I think everybody knows

[1:11:03] the outcome. Um

[1:11:05] So, the new River City plan. Look,

[1:11:10] Patrick, if the judge overturned the order and

[1:11:16] you have invested in an approved site plan per judge order

[1:11:19] and can go forward while you're here. Probably valid question that you might

[1:11:24] ask me already. So, I'll throw it out there. Um look, I have

[1:11:28] worked with the city for over a year and a half on this project.

[1:11:32] I said earlier we're a local builder that makes our name on relationships

[1:11:36] and building better neighborhoods and better homes.

[1:11:43] This housing development right here is right on the border of the city.

[1:11:48] This project can do a lot of great things for the city that I'll list out

[1:11:52] on another slide. And I think I'd be remiss to not come

[1:11:55] back to the city who has worked for me worked with me, I've had meetings with,

[1:12:00] right? Asked for feedback on what the city would want

[1:12:04] to bring it into the city and let the city get the revenue and the

[1:12:08] benefit from it because we don't plan on this being our

[1:12:12] last community in Clinton.

[1:12:16] We're the South Carolina We're a local South Carolina builder and

[1:12:20] we're going to make our name on building throughout South Carolina. And we do, we

[1:12:23] build in in five markets in South Carolina.

[1:12:26] Some of the things we added to this, other than reducing lots of what we

[1:12:29] could go do with 523 lots, we added an 11-acre

[1:12:35] central park amenity that was not on what you saw the first time.

[1:12:38] And it was also not on the county plan that is approved.

[1:12:45] We also have the pool and the amenity.

[1:12:49] And we reduced lots and we added in the commercial. Why did

[1:12:52] we add in the commercial? We've had meetings

[1:12:56] with the city, with citizens. We have had meetings with

[1:12:59] some citizens, and meetings with staff, different members of of commission, etc.

[1:13:05] Not to be underhanded, but to ask what does the city want?

[1:13:08] And the thing that I heard over and over again was that the city wants

[1:13:12] better restaurants, grocery stores, nice boutique retail.

[1:13:17] And that's what we intend to do there. That's why I put that there. I'm not a

[1:13:19] commercial developer. That is not what I do.

[1:13:22] My grandfather was, but I am not. Um

[1:13:26] And so, because of that, I brought in an experienced commercial developer. But,

[1:13:29] the kind of cycling we could do is all residential, because that's who we are.

[1:13:31] We're we're residential home builders. Um

[1:13:35] but we had that added that because we had heard so much feedback that

[1:13:38] residents wanted restaurants, grocery stores.

[1:13:43] Maybe daycare. And so, that's why that was added in there.

[1:13:47] Um

[1:13:49] With that, the zoning R1, um those lots are bigger than the current R1 lot

[1:13:55] minimum. R1 lot minimum 7,100 square feet. Those are 10,500 square feet. R2S,

[1:14:01] um those are 8,700 square foot lots. R3S, 7,500 square foot lots.

[1:14:06] Small commercial parcel, and then the AR zoning is for the current home. We just,

[1:14:11] you know, that's not going to go with the development.

[1:14:14] Um we're going to have walking trails,

[1:14:19] sidewalks,

[1:14:22] major amenities with a central park, athletic field, fire pit, playgrounds.

[1:14:28] Put in a lot of infrastructure to make sure that this is something nice,

[1:14:31] because what we would like this to be, is I can

[1:14:35] promise you >> [clears throat]

[1:14:37] » there is nothing like that. And I'm I'm building

[1:14:40] and and and I have land throughout Lawrence County. There's nothing like

[1:14:42] that in Lawrence County right now. And there are a lot of jobs coming.

[1:14:46] With that kind of amenity, with those size lots, there's not.

[1:14:53] Um

[1:14:56] So, to me, I see this as a destination community.

[1:14:59] And that's what we're trying to build here.

[1:15:00] Um Next slide.

[1:15:04] So, why R2S and R3S? So, one quote from the comp plan, so I

[1:15:09] heard "Hey, stick with the comp plan" a lot tonight. I would encourage that.

[1:15:14] Um if you look at the section we're in, we're actually uh bringing in a lesser

[1:15:19] density than what the use says is called for in that area. Um so, I would stick

[1:15:24] with the comp plan. I agree with everybody who has said that. Um

[1:15:27] so, residential growth and housing diversity is a quote from the comp plan.

[1:15:30] Planned residential development highlights the need for additional

[1:15:33] housing capacity. This is the This is the city's comp

[1:15:37] plan. I didn't I didn't write this. The need for additional housing capacity

[1:15:41] and a broader range of housing types.

[1:15:46] Would going in and putting in 500 of the same type house accomplish

[1:15:51] that? I think it would, right? And and here's

[1:15:55] the reasoning that we're asking for R2S and R3S. Yes,

[1:16:00] it is the lot width. Yes, if you see on this exhibit,

[1:16:04] if I have a 70-ft wide lot, I have to eat 70 ft of very expensive

[1:16:07] infrastructure, which is roads, curb, gutter,

[1:16:12] sewer, water lines, a lot of things, right?

[1:16:16] So, when you look at the R3S, let's start there.

[1:16:20] That section, I believe your emergency services

[1:16:24] personnel should be able to live in a neighborhood that's nice like that.

[1:16:30] And that addresses the need for additional housing capacity and a

[1:16:33] broader range of housing types. Um

[1:16:38] Well, at the end of the day, and not just them, teachers, right? Any Anyone

[1:16:43] who is looking for an affordable new single family home

[1:16:47] with warranties and a nice neighborhood with big amenities.

[1:16:52] If I eat an additional 20 ft of all of those infrastructures, all of

[1:16:57] the infrastructure into that lot, that is going to add to the cost of the

[1:17:02] home, and that buyer is very sensitive on on payment.

[1:17:06] They might not qualify for the home. That's the intention of it.

[1:17:10] But because of that, and and because I want you to know that I'm not going to

[1:17:13] go below 7,500 sq ft, there's a development agreement that's

[1:17:17] been put forth that was mentioned at planning, and that was how it was

[1:17:22] recommended and approved by planning. Um and I'll go through those bullet

[1:17:26] points later. But the development agreement

[1:17:30] is me saying I'm here to do what I say I'm going to do.

[1:17:33] I am not the other builders or developers who came behind me.

[1:17:38] Here to do what I'm I'm I say I'm going to do, and I'm willing to back that up

[1:17:41] with a development agreement that restricts me

[1:17:44] to where I won't go below 7,500 sq ft. And by the way,

[1:17:47] if you look on the right, if I do it on a 50-ft wide lot and leave it at 7,500

[1:17:51] sq ft, that's 150 ft of depth, where the people get a much bigger backyard.

[1:17:57] Do people fence in their side yard or their back yard?

[1:18:00] Their back yard. And the kids play in the back yard.

[1:18:03] They're going to get more back yard out of this.

[1:18:06] Um next slide. So, these are our homes that'll go in

[1:18:12] the R3S. Um

[1:18:15] these square feet foot range in the in the low 2,000s.

[1:18:19] Um they are bigger than what one of our

[1:18:23] competitors' neighborhoods, which if you want to run through the underwriting, it

[1:18:26] was mentioned earlier, happy to do that. Um

[1:18:29] was mentioned um that competitor between 1,200 and 1,700 sq ft. We don't have a

[1:18:33] single house in here that's small. Um and that was used in the comp study

[1:18:37] to prove out the numbers, but I'm happy to run through that.

[1:18:40] Um, so that's it and I'll say this, looking

[1:18:43] at that hopefully you see that that is a our our goal is nicer elevations which

[1:18:47] create nicer streetscapes, better landscaping packages which when you pull

[1:18:50] up through our neighborhood, you don't wonder

[1:18:52] which builder is this on the builder 100 list, right? You pull through our

[1:18:56] neighborhood and immediately know this is this is a Veranda Homes community

[1:18:58] just like you did when it was an Essex Homes community.

[1:19:01] Um, next slide, please. So, this is the R2 S section. So, this

[1:19:07] is a little little larger house. Um, you'll run in the mid 2000s to high 2000

[1:19:11] square foot range. Um, in this lot size and buyer type which we're trying to hit

[1:19:17] multiple buyers within the city, right? Um, you can do two things typically. Uh,

[1:19:22] it can be a first move up buyer, uh, two-story home, a little larger,

[1:19:25] family that's growing, right? Um, or it can be a move down buyer as you see a

[1:19:29] ranch plan right there which is our Redbud plan which is one of our

[1:19:31] best-selling homes. >> [clears throat]

[1:19:33] » Um, and is being sold. It is the model of Foxbank. Um, it's been mentioned.

[1:19:37] Next slide. Um,

[1:19:40] so then we have the 52-foot plans. Um, that is your R1.

[1:19:44] Um, what's shown there is your what's

[1:19:48] popular right now which is the farmhouse style, but we have all kinds of

[1:19:50] different elevations, right? [clears throat]

[1:19:52] Um, this is what I would call our our bigger luxury home

[1:19:56] um, that'll run in the 3000 to 4000 square foot range.

[1:20:00] Um, next slide.

[1:20:02] » quick question. That would go on what width lot?

[1:20:06] » Can I answer her? Come back here.

[1:20:08] » Yes, ma'am. What's the question? >> Those those houses

[1:20:10] » Yes, ma'am. 75 75-foot wide ma'am.

[1:20:13] » And so 52 >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:20:16] Yes, ma'am. >> So, you have

[1:20:17] » Okay, let's let's let let's let let's let the Let's keep going with the

[1:20:22] » Yeah. >> with the

[1:20:24] Mr. >> So, the

[1:20:25] The deal with these materials I I actually printed them out, but I know

[1:20:28] you have them you've been sending they've been sending it you. Um, if

[1:20:31] anybody needed them, um, we do have a wetland study.

[1:20:35] And so Laura Belanger is here. Sorry, I hope I didn't screw up your last name.

[1:20:41] » [laughter] >> But she is the wetlands consultant on

[1:20:44] this project. And so I thought I'd bring her along this time. There's been a lot

[1:20:47] of questions on it. So I want like I said, I'm open to questions. And so

[1:20:50] please ask away. But I want to bring the experts. And so y'all can get the

[1:20:53] answers straight from them. And it's not just me up here talking. Um

[1:20:57] We have the property survey, the site plan which you've seen.

[1:21:00] Um traffic study. Um and yes, that will be updated.

[1:21:06] So standard anywhere in the state of South Carolina

[1:21:09] that is not updated and reviewed typically in an annexation and zoning

[1:21:14] meeting, we update that just before the planning commission meeting for site

[1:21:17] plan approval. Um but we did go ahead and get one so we were aware at least of

[1:21:21] what the impact would be at least typically

[1:21:24] what kind of traffic improvements we would be required to do for budgeting

[1:21:28] purposes. So we do have one um and it will be updated before planning

[1:21:32] commission meeting for site plan approval. Um and you know

[1:21:36] that um

[1:21:40] traffic study per SCDOT

[1:21:44] Highway 56 the capacity that Highway 56 was

[1:21:49] designed for right now what's going through it and

[1:21:52] this is not me. It's per SCDOT is at low use right now.

[1:21:58] It is. That's not me saying that's a governmental agency who created that.

[1:22:01] And actually, interestingly enough right here

[1:22:05] is your comp plan, page from your comp plan.

[1:22:10] Page 7-5 figure 7.4 average annual daily traffic.

[1:22:17] You have five levels of traffic and there's a circle right in front of our

[1:22:20] site. This is in the mid level.

[1:22:24] This is the city's comp plan. And in the city's comp plan, it says, "Fortunately

[1:22:29] for Clinton, the town already benefits from a solid

[1:22:32] base of roadway infrastructure built over prior decades,

[1:22:36] which provides a strong foundation for mobility and connectivity.

[1:22:42] As new residential, commercial, and industrial development moves forward,

[1:22:45] future roadway construction will primarily focus on providing new access

[1:22:49] to newly developed properties for connecting internal streets,

[1:22:53] rather than constructing entirely new primary thoroughfares."

[1:22:57] Which applies to this because we, as a developer, will

[1:23:01] put in improvements. When new roads are created for access to

[1:23:04] new developments, these roadways are typically constructed by private

[1:23:07] developers, inspected by the local government, and then either dedicated to

[1:23:10] the city or maintained by private entity like a homeowners association. So,

[1:23:16] if you don't believe SCDOT or our traffic study engineer, who is licensed,

[1:23:20] your own comp plan says it. So,

[1:23:23] not up here lying. Um

[1:23:27] So, we also have a phase one ESA, um just to make sure the property's free

[1:23:31] of environmental hazards. We have that, we've submitted it, you have that, and

[1:23:34] utility will serve letters as well. So, all that's done. Next slide, please.

[1:23:38] Um benefits to the city, um you know, revenue

[1:23:42] is an obvious one. Um you know, look,

[1:23:48] I don't have to pay $4,800 impact fees in the county when my current site plan

[1:23:52] is approved. Do 490 * $4,800.

[1:23:57] Right? I- If If you didn't think I was here in earnest before,

[1:24:01] that's a big number.

[1:24:05] Um And so, that revenue is obviously a big

[1:24:08] number, the tax base is a big number. Um

[1:24:12] you know,

[1:24:15] also the ballpark and industrial park. This will bring bring jobs to people, no

[1:24:20] matter what, right? There's an industrial park coming, there's a

[1:24:22] ballpark coming, there's hotels in that, there's restaurants. That is going to

[1:24:25] bring people and traffic and and jobs. But for the industrial park to get

[1:24:30] filled out with businesses, you're going to need rooftops.

[1:24:35] Um I said my my grandfather was in

[1:24:37] commercial real estate my whole life. And

[1:24:40] my father and uncle did it as well. And the first question that any business

[1:24:45] or any restaurant or retailer asked when they walked in that door is how many

[1:24:49] rooftops are around them. You're already planning for growth. It's

[1:24:53] not a question of if you are. You got an industrial ballpark, you got the

[1:24:56] industrial facility, you got all this stuff.

[1:24:59] By the way, the empty retail shops, you know how those get filled?

[1:25:04] Rooftops. That is the number one thing needed for

[1:25:09] anything commercial business or retail.

[1:25:13] Um the utilities, um

[1:25:16] you know, right now the water capacity largely largely underutilized. I I know

[1:25:20] y'all know that. Um so, plenty of room there.

[1:25:23] Um jobs, you know, look, this improves quality of life in the

[1:25:30] fact that the average median annual income

[1:25:35] goes up >> [clears throat]

[1:25:36] » with this. We create jobs with the boutique retail, right?

[1:25:41] Um we bring in the people that can fill the

[1:25:43] businesses that will come, right? Quality of life improves.

[1:25:49] Restaurants and grocery stores, like I said, in the in the commercial section,

[1:25:52] citizens We we can do that because we heard the citizens were asking for it.

[1:25:55] That's literally why we put that in there. Um and the school system right

[1:25:58] now is currently so underutilized and at risk in Clinton

[1:26:03] that if it is not filled more, it will be enveloped into

[1:26:06] the Lauren schools. That is a fact.

[1:26:11] Keep the Clinton schools the Clinton schools.

[1:26:14] And how do you do that? Rooftops. People.

[1:26:18] Right?

[1:26:21] Next slide.

[1:26:24] So, a lot of things were said earlier.

[1:26:27] There's been a lot of questions submitted. I'm not going to take time to

[1:26:30] go through each one of these individually cuz I I promise you I'm

[1:26:33] trying to get through this. So, just know

[1:26:36] we have a whole team here and we're here to answer any of the questions that were

[1:26:39] asked earlier. We we actually welcome the questions. I've had some meetings

[1:26:43] with citizens just welcoming questions. Um

[1:26:46] so, next slide. Uh why Veranda? Local ownership.

[1:26:51] » [clears throat] >> Um and I've covered a little bit of

[1:26:53] this, so I won't spend too much time on it. Um we did win HBA Greenville's

[1:26:57] Builder of the Year this year. I mean, I I you don't do that for doing a terrible

[1:27:00] job. Um

[1:27:02] uh and a good partner to the city to grow the right way. Um

[1:27:06] look, I'm telling you I've worked in the

[1:27:09] bigger builder sphere. I know what it looks like and I left it for a reason.

[1:27:13] Um what I what we're saying we're going to

[1:27:15] do here, we're going to do and it will be better streetscapes and

[1:27:20] better homes. Promise that.

[1:27:22] If I can give you one [clears throat] promise here.

[1:27:24] Um we also have a local partnership with

[1:27:27] Heath Davis who has a 10-year track record in commercial.

[1:27:30] Strong financial backing with a local approach. As you can imagine selling a

[1:27:34] top 50 builder in the United States, we were very sound in financial backing. I

[1:27:38] know there's questions on that. [clears throat]

[1:27:40] Happy to elaborate on that. Um

[1:27:43] and we have documented success with neighborhoods like Long View which was

[1:27:47] mentioned earlier. But first, before we go to the tour Long View and I'll leave

[1:27:51] you all with the option if you want me to tour you Long View. But um go to the

[1:27:55] next slide, please. Um so, our request for approval, what is it? So, this is

[1:27:59] the request for approval that was recommended and approved by planning

[1:28:05] commission. Um

[1:28:10] I mean, I think they did that for a reason.

[1:28:13] I think this is a better site plan for the city

[1:28:15] than what we have in the county right now. I truly do.

[1:28:20] Might be less homes for me, but it's better amenities,

[1:28:24] bigger central park, nice boutique retail

[1:28:27] to tie into that. I think it becomes a destination. I think it's better.

[1:28:31] And I'm willing to pay $4,800 a lot more and come into the city to do it.

[1:28:36] Um with that request of R1, R2S, R3S,

[1:28:41] commercial and and uh agricultural for the the home that's

[1:28:46] that's staying. Um

[1:28:48] we request approval with conditions on city council approval of development

[1:28:53] agreement with the draft has has been provided. Um

[1:28:57] and suggested terms of that agreement. Some of the concerns on R3S, R2S,

[1:29:02] Patrick, once we do it, you can go just you can you don't have to leave your

[1:29:06] lots at at 7,500 square feet. You can go do as many as you want. So, I'm going to

[1:29:09] suggest in that agreement we'll put our money where our mouth is and we will

[1:29:13] restrict ourselves to exactly how many lots we're presenting you today.

[1:29:17] So, under no circumstance can I go higher than that. Um

[1:29:21] true R1, by the way, in in in the first, you know, a year and a half ago as

[1:29:24] mentioned, we we we showed we had a presentation and showed how many lots I

[1:29:29] could get on 300 acres with true R1. It was 700.

[1:29:35] So, we're asking for 409. Um

[1:29:40] we would like to restrict ourselves to a 7,500 square foot minimum lot size

[1:29:43] because we know that R3S and R2S uh allow smaller lots. So, we want we want

[1:29:48] to restrict ourselves to that to make sure you get the lot size of R1.

[1:29:54] We will guarantee the 10-plus acre central park in the community.

[1:29:58] We will guarantee the amenity package that is shown here, so you know I won't

[1:30:02] deviate from what I'm showing you and show you something and and go do

[1:30:05] something different later, right? I know you've been you've had some experiences

[1:30:08] like that with developers and builders in the past. And so, putting all this on

[1:30:11] here is not who we are. Um

[1:30:15] the community will be encumbered by an HOA and we'll guarantee that in writing.

[1:30:18] I would have done it anyways. It needs to be managed by an HOA and we are very

[1:30:22] strict on that. Um all the way down to the fence types. So,

[1:30:26] you can't have a chain link fence then a wooden fence then a chain You know what

[1:30:28] I mean? We we're very very strict on HOAs. So, we will make [snorts] sure

[1:30:31] this is maintained through that. Um we'll also offer a minimum of 18 ft

[1:30:35] between house pads. So, one of the concerns with I know R3S and R2S

[1:30:40] you don't want this to be one of those communities that I won't name the name

[1:30:43] of the builder where you can drive down 385 and see those houses stacked right

[1:30:46] on top of each other. I know that. Um

[1:30:50] your R1 required width between homes is 15 ft.

[1:30:56] Those homes you're looking at are anywhere between 10 to 12 ft.

[1:30:59] We're going to offer 18 ft.

[1:31:04] that you can handcuff us to that I can't get out of

[1:31:08] in the development agreement, which is greater than your R1 width.

[1:31:12] It's 15. I'm offering more.

[1:31:15] Um and then covenants and restrictions on

[1:31:19] commercial use and type. Um as I mentioned earlier, homes have to

[1:31:22] come for commercial to come. Commercial won't be built right away.

[1:31:27] Homes have to come. They have to see the rooftops so you're not going to get them

[1:31:29] to come. Um but those homes and rooftops will get

[1:31:32] them to come for sure. Um but

[1:31:37] with that said, we don't want to just build anything and honestly, it would

[1:31:39] hurt me if I went and built retail that wasn't attractive, right? That wasn't

[1:31:44] what I'd call boutique retail, nice restaurants, or a daycare, something

[1:31:47] like that. If I built something that was an eyesore right at the front of my

[1:31:52] community entrance doesn't help me

[1:31:55] at all. And so, I'm going to show you I'm earnest in that.

[1:31:59] And within the development agreement submitted, we

[1:32:02] listed a long list of items of what we cannot

[1:32:05] do, even though it says in that zoning that we can.

[1:32:09] We'll take all this out, and honestly, I'm open to adding to it.

[1:32:12] Uh we we our goal is boutique retail because it helps our community.

[1:32:17] I have no reason to build anything else. Um it ties in our community. It needs to

[1:32:21] be nice. Um

[1:32:23] » [clears throat] >> And so

[1:32:25] with that uh uh said,

[1:32:29] that is our request for approval. Um I can take you through the long view if

[1:32:34] there's interest, or I can just stop here.

[1:32:38] » Questions from council. Can Can we go back to the R1 elevation

[1:32:43] slide? I think >> Yes, sir.

[1:32:45] » I think the question that some people may have had is how you can fit that,

[1:32:48] and I guess you're getting the some from one lot, and

[1:32:52] anyway, can you explain that? >> Yes. Uh so, 53 2-ft [clears throat] on

[1:32:56] 75-ft wide. Um

[1:32:59] by the way, R1 is 70-ft wide, so you're 75, so you're wider than that. Um

[1:33:04] so, that leaves you with

[1:33:10] What is that, Carl? It's 43? 23 ft? Chemical engineer.

[1:33:16] » [laughter] >> 23 ft.

[1:33:19] Um so,

[1:33:21] we said eight Your your your ordinance is 15.

[1:33:26] » 23 ft on both sides, but >> No, it's

[1:33:29] » Okay. >> 23 total.

[1:33:31] » Total. >> Yeah.

[1:33:33] » Distributed between the sides, what would happen is one house would be

[1:33:38] sitting 11 and 1/2 ft from the property line. The next house on the other lot

[1:33:44] would be sitting 11 and 1/2 ft from the property line.

[1:33:48] So, you'd have a combined 23 ft between them, although it's not all on one lot,

[1:33:52] and that would be and it it the house could vary a little bit, you know, a

[1:33:57] foot or two either way on the lot depending on some things, but generally

[1:34:01] you have a neighborhood where the spacing between the adjacent houses is

[1:34:05] 23 ft on the average.

[1:34:10] » [clears throat] >> In that

[1:34:12] » One thing we did as a company is we always bought bigger lots to put our

[1:34:18] houses on than our competitors did because we liked

[1:34:22] the larger lots and we felt like it helped our neighborhoods hold their

[1:34:26] values and that is one thing in a neighborhood that's got a little more

[1:34:30] space between the houses, they generally do hold their value better.

[1:34:33] » And and and once again 15 ft total is your R1 ordinance between

[1:34:39] the homes, not from the house to the property line, right?

[1:34:42] » So like 7 and 1/2 ft to your fence, basically.

[1:34:45] That's your R1 zoning, right? And so what I'm what I'm saying is we're bigger

[1:34:48] than that, right? We're 23. So we're bigger than R1's width.

[1:34:53] » Mr. Mayor, I got several questions and they're going to go to different people.

[1:34:56] So if I could kind of run through my questions

[1:34:59] counsel, I'll yield to the floor later to you guys.

[1:35:03] Right now, our C3 allows for R3 inside of a C3 by ordinance.

[1:35:11] That was not taken into consideration to my knowledge by planning commission.

[1:35:16] So I'm asking our plan city planner and city manager, what will need to be done

[1:35:22] to prohibit at some point in time, whether it's these current developers or

[1:35:27] someone else later down the road, from being able to go in there and put an R3

[1:35:32] inside that C3 zone.

[1:35:38] » The development agreement that they're proposing

[1:35:40] specifies that as as one of the

[1:35:43] » But that's only with this developer. If they were to sell

[1:35:47] that development agreement doesn't necessarily carry to the next. So to me,

[1:35:52] if the it could change. It can go to It can go to court. It can change. I'm a

[1:35:58] banker. It things can change, okay? It's not guaranteed forever. It can

[1:36:04] change. My question, why we going to go against our ordinance before planning

[1:36:10] commission and we as a council decide not to leave that R3 inside of a C3?

[1:36:20] » I'm confused. What's the Convert the R3 C3 mean commercial?

[1:36:25] » Commercial zone. >> about the front

[1:36:28] » The commercial zone, the red zone. >> Okay.

[1:36:30] » If for some reason they do not get enough retail in there,

[1:36:35] they can start putting R3s in there. >> Well, they can't because they'll be

[1:36:42] signing a development agreement. But, you're saying someone else could buy it

[1:36:45] from them and then do that. >> Well,

[1:36:48] I mean, that may be on that list of what they won't do.

[1:36:52] But, right now, the ordinance allows for an R3 to be

[1:36:56] built in a C3 zone. >> Okay.

[1:37:01] » With the development agreement restricting

[1:37:04] rental homes from doing that, then in the meantime, we can go back

[1:37:10] and review the C3 zoning and make changes that need to be there to prevent

[1:37:15] that from happening in the future. >> Okay. Can we

[1:37:19] Can that be done prior to our second reading

[1:37:23] or final approval? Because I I think we're getting into a lot of

[1:37:27] contingencies that do not need to be there.

[1:37:30] This is too big a deal for both them and us.

[1:37:35] And that is a big contingency in my books.

[1:37:38] Okay, that's first question that y'all may need to think on for a minute.

[1:37:42] At what point do you guys break even in this project.

[1:37:49] Break even. Where you can start making profits.

[1:37:53] How many homes will you have to build to break even,

[1:37:59] whether they're all ones or two s's or three s's,

[1:38:03] or even the commercial? At what point do you break even?

[1:38:07] » Do you want to say it again? Here's your own problem, your mic.

[1:38:10] » I can't

[1:38:13] I can't break it down to an exact number like 23 and a half percent,

[1:38:18] but it's a mistake to believe that we would

[1:38:22] go in and develop all this property at one time. We would

[1:38:27] develop some of the larger lots, some of the

[1:38:30] medium lots, and some of the smaller lots, so we would be selling

[1:38:34] houses in three price points. So, typically,

[1:38:39] you want a neighborhood that pays off for that section of the development at

[1:38:44] about 65%. That's when you try to get your land.

[1:38:48] Maybe 70% is when the land's paid for, but the individual houses that you would

[1:38:54] buy um

[1:38:56] we would make the attempt would be to make a profit on each house.

[1:39:00] » Yeah, there's there's the development side and the home building side, I would

[1:39:03] say. >> Right, I understand. Okay.

[1:39:06] So, then that leads me to the question, I I think I heard listening here say you

[1:39:11] will not do the horizontal development, you have another developer that would do

[1:39:16] that part of the plan building. >> property

[1:39:21] through the years in multiple ways, and we have developed some very large

[1:39:26] subdivisions individually inside of the companies that we've owned.

[1:39:31] Um we have entered into partnerships. Probably

[1:39:34] um 2/3 of what we've developed we partnered with other people and brought

[1:39:39] them in for for for reasons. and uh so um um

[1:39:45] can't say exactly right now, but uh um

[1:39:49] » But that's important to us to kind of know who we will be working with and

[1:39:54] relying on to build to do all the infrastructure. So

[1:39:58] » Right now, plan is for us to build it. That's the plan.

[1:40:00] » So you will be able So based on the numbers you shared with the planning

[1:40:03] commission, there's a lot of money going to flow out on the front end

[1:40:08] » Yes, sir. >> with the infrastructure built out.

[1:40:11] » That's pretty typical on a development. You know,

[1:40:14] it's heavy on the front end. Um and to clarify on the planning

[1:40:16] commission numbers, so there was a number given earlier that said I gave 30

[1:40:21] million in infrastructure. So that is 61,000 a lot. Okay? It did It

[1:40:25] does It does not cost us 61,000 a lot to develop the infrastructure. That's more

[1:40:29] like 40 or 45. So on those numbers that were given, they added 9 million in soft

[1:40:34] costs to that 30 30 million number that was and

[1:40:38] contingencies that was already in my number.

[1:40:42] » Okay. Y'all are too smart of gentlemen not to done your spreadsheets and Excel

[1:40:48] Excel spreadsheets. So you know, in the very beginning when we met almost a year

[1:40:53] and a half ago in the boardroom across the way over

[1:40:56] there, I asked for a lot of things about

[1:40:59] seeing profit and loss balance sheets, and I never got them.

[1:41:05] They were in the middle of the audit. And

[1:41:08] I never got them. >> I think we did give it because a citizen

[1:41:12] got a hold of it and spoke about it at the planning commission of the county.

[1:41:17] Um >> I was told you were in the middle of the

[1:41:20] audit and it wasn't any use till we got through the audit to give them so we

[1:41:24] could share that you we could have that information.

[1:41:27] » time, we we did get it I don't know maybe it didn't land in your hands, but

[1:41:30] I I we did send it to the city cuz that's how the citizen got a hold of it

[1:41:32] and shared it with the planning commission in county. Um Um, and and

[1:41:36] yes, that was our first 9-months of operation.

[1:41:38] » Right. >> Business school

[1:41:40] 2 to 3 years. >> Sure.

[1:41:42] » 2 to 3 years in business is what companies take to start up. Uh, some

[1:41:45] take five. Uh, here in year two, this is full second full year, we will profit.

[1:41:50] Um, which is ahead of most. >> Okay.

[1:41:52] » Um, and Um, I don't have anything else on that. But, uh, yes, sir. I mean, if

[1:41:57] you didn't get out, I mean, I did send send to the city.

[1:42:00] Um, that's how that person got a hold of it during the

[1:42:02] » Okay. >> planning commission. I I

[1:42:04] Sorry, I I don't I don't know.

[1:42:06] » Can you clarify that? >> Yeah.

[1:42:07] » Those those were the first set that they were working on with the auditors, and

[1:42:12] that's when it went out to the county. That information went to the county. At

[1:42:15] that point, I didn't ask for a second set of records

[1:42:18] because they were at the county at that point.

[1:42:22] » Okay. >> Can I ask you something?

[1:42:24] You don't mind? So, if you go back, can y'all hear

[1:42:27] [clears throat] me okay? Well, I thank y'all for coming.

[1:42:31] Uh, you know, it's

[1:42:33] We got families just like y'all, and we're not here to

[1:42:37] have any problems. We're just here for the future.

[1:42:40] And I'm sure we're all living it now. So, I I I

[1:42:45] I guess y'all where you live and that's your main goal.

[1:42:48] It's just for But,

[1:42:51] what we are doing a little bit different

[1:42:55] is on on a lot of the developments you see now,

[1:42:59] they would take this and cut everything out, uh, and bring it down to bare

[1:43:04] bones, and you can see red dirt. Okay?

[1:43:08] We're not doing that. >> That's right.

[1:43:10] » It's a beautiful beautiful property back here. So, everybody Earlier, they were

[1:43:14] talking about, well, you know, if you don't manage it, then

[1:43:17] we're here, you're going to see nothing but bad stuff.

[1:43:21] So, how we're developing this starting with

[1:43:24] is in phases, like he said earlier. 1 2 3 to 5 phases.

[1:43:28] » And it might take >> 10 to 12 years.

[1:43:31] » How long did it take to develop?

[1:43:33] » The reason we did the commercial is because your city

[1:43:39] asked us to work with them to bring something nice retail or restaurant to

[1:43:44] your area. Because

[1:43:47] we we already had a plan of close to 600 homes.

[1:43:52] So, we worked with your city you city people

[1:43:56] to see what we could do here to bring something nice

[1:44:02] something that these people in the all communities

[1:44:06] something that a family could go in not a vape shop

[1:44:10] not a liquor store but something you could take your little kid or grandkid.

[1:44:14] But when we did this in phases you know, all this right here your

[1:44:19] timber and your and

[1:44:22] everything you see that's what we're buying.

[1:44:25] Only till you get to the to the fourth and fifth of that this phase two. So, I

[1:44:30] want you to understand, too. So, that keeps your cost down.

[1:44:34] » Yeah, we >> says 30 million

[1:44:36] » Yeah. So, one one of the quotes earlier was that

[1:44:39] we would have 20 million dollars in funding outstanding we're paying

[1:44:41] interest on. That's not how development of this size works. Um you you divide

[1:44:45] that into phases, right? Some some builders do, right? They got a ton of

[1:44:48] money and they're they're the big guys and the big players and they'll come in

[1:44:52] and just scorch earth, right? They'll just blow everything out, right? But

[1:44:55] look, I was in Finance is what I did for him.

[1:45:00] Make sure he uses money wisely. I I handled all the relationships with the

[1:45:03] bankers. That's what I did. Right? And I and I got deals financed like this many

[1:45:07] times over. Never had one not get financed. Um but

[1:45:11] » spending 30 million. >> Yeah, but at the end of the day, it

[1:45:14] would be >> But at some point you will come close to

[1:45:16] that number based on your projections that you work with at this point in

[1:45:20] time. That is a real number. >> It is it is it is

[1:45:24] » be spent day one, but at some point But it

[1:45:26] » be outstanding at one >> Right. That's all I'm saying.

[1:45:28] » Yeah, yeah, yeah. It'll be >> Divide that into five, right? And that's

[1:45:31] probably at any given time maybe what's outstanding, but yeah, yes, sir. Yeah.

[1:45:36] » All right. And I understand why our city staff may have talked about the need for

[1:45:41] commercial, but at the same time, we have 25

[1:45:45] buildings downtown empty today. And that's a scary thought. Now, we just

[1:45:51] had our first meeting last week No.

[1:45:54] » Yeah, last week to talk about how can we revitalize our downtown and not let it

[1:46:00] die. >> Yes, sir.

[1:46:02] » But if we start taking a lot more retail out there or out there, which is going

[1:46:08] to happen with the baseball complex and things of that,

[1:46:11] » Yes, sir. >> we've got to figure out a way to keep

[1:46:13] our downtown or we lose that quality that we you know,

[1:46:19] » I agree, and I think 490 homes is a way that you revitalize

[1:46:23] that, right? Getting people there. And our site won't just rob that, right?

[1:46:27] We're We're It's not like that's the entire downtown of retail, right? I

[1:46:31] mean, it you know, it's it will these people are not far from downtown.

[1:46:35] They'll drive down there and utilize it. It'll help, hopefully, with that, right?

[1:46:38] » But it it is a concern we've got to have to think about whether, you know,

[1:46:44] because it's new, it's fresh, it's vibrant looking versus what we have

[1:46:49] right now downtown is not. Now, >> One other consideration for that is that

[1:46:53] um as far as the commercial goes, that will not be built until later in

[1:46:59] the project. You're going to get a lot of homes in that really will service

[1:47:02] your downtown for years and years and years without any of that competition.

[1:47:06] Um and then at the point which this it gets further in, that's when those

[1:47:10] retailers will commit and say, "Okay, well, there's enough people that can go,

[1:47:13] you know, frequent downtown, but then now also support this." And they'll do

[1:47:17] that math. Like, they won't come to us if if it if it's not supported. Um and

[1:47:22] and we just thought it was relevant certain eagles right there. Right, it's

[1:47:26] it's that area is designated a commercial corridor in the comp plan and

[1:47:30] and so we just thought maybe hey, this is a good

[1:47:33] good what If we were going to tie in, we tie in there. It just felt that's what

[1:47:37] for us that's why we put it there. >> We had volunteered our services I did to

[1:47:40] your city to help grow uh do the theater downtown.

[1:47:44] I I did do that. >> The comprehensive plan you have quoted

[1:47:49] from and worked with, is that our 2019 plan or is that the draft?

[1:47:54] » draft. >> Yes, sir.

[1:47:55] » Okay, which we have not been given a copy of. So, we do not have reference to

[1:48:00] what you've been working with. >> Okay.

[1:48:03] » Um, and yeah. Of course, planning commission still

[1:48:06] waiting on receipt. >> Huh?

[1:48:08] » We have received it. >> We have electronically but not

[1:48:11] » As a group. >> As a group.

[1:48:13] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:48:15] They mean with that. Um

[1:48:20] Based on your projections of what you see over a course of time.

[1:48:28] We've talked a lot about oh, it's going to be great. The tax revenue will be

[1:48:32] fantastic for our city because the impact fees are very designated and very

[1:48:37] specific. We need them desperately. But a comment was made in the planning

[1:48:42] commission the city was broke. We are not broke.

[1:48:46] I just want to clarify that right now. Could we use a lot more money?

[1:48:49] Absolutely. Could we do more things, you know, yes, absolutely. But we also know

[1:48:54] we're going to have to build more another fire substation, maybe two at

[1:48:58] some point. We may need another fire truck. That's what things and will be

[1:49:03] used with those impact fees. Based on your schedule of building

[1:49:10] and I realize that's a a guessing number right now.

[1:49:14] But for us to recognize property tax revenues at what point you

[1:49:20] think we're going to see significant [clears throat] dollars coming in

[1:49:25] that we can then use in our operating budget.

[1:49:27] » Yes, sir. Um well, you know, I would give it every bit

[1:49:33] to to to get to building homes, right? From where we stand today, and some of

[1:49:37] that is dependent on obviously we've got to create a full set of construction

[1:49:41] drawings. That's got to go back to planning and your staff has to review

[1:49:43] it. There's all kinds of things that y'all will have control over, right? And

[1:49:47] the city that's another good thing too here being with y'all versus the county

[1:49:50] is like gives you that control to take to have all those reviews and and

[1:49:53] address some questions that were asked, which were good questions.

[1:49:56] Um you know, I every bit of two every bit

[1:49:58] of two years if not, you know, your two to three to get the homes started.

[1:50:02] Um you know, and then from there,

[1:50:06] um you know, you're going to run, you know,

[1:50:09] every I'd I'd say another I mean, how many homes you're looking for

[1:50:14] to get to you the revenue you're looking for or you just want all of it? How long

[1:50:17] » No, I'm just wondering how much, you know, would be a a really

[1:50:20] a correct and more accurate number to use

[1:50:24] » At least another >> financial planning.

[1:50:26] » I mean, to get to 100 homes, you're at least another two or three years

[1:50:29] depending on market. Right now, the market's slow. And I'm going to that's a

[1:50:32] national news. Everybody knows it, right? You know, if you underwrite a

[1:50:34] project right now, you're under writing at the dip, right? And it's slow. If it

[1:50:38] turns back up, that number could go faster, right? And so, I mean, standing

[1:50:42] right here right now with what I know you're I think you're probably everybody

[1:50:45] three years get to 100 homes. That's that's solid revenue to me.

[1:50:49] You know, I'm I'm not that's not my area of expertise, but

[1:50:53] » [laughter]

[1:50:57] » Danny, you getting close? >> Yeah, I'm finished.

[1:51:00] » All right. I'm like Danny, I'm going to be here a

[1:51:02] little bit, so um some of this going to be just

[1:51:05] statements, some of it's going to be questions. I don't need deep

[1:51:09] in-depth explanation. You said hired you used to to tell it city utilities. will

[1:51:15] help our rates." I've asked that question before. Our utility rates will

[1:51:18] not go down, no matter how many houses we get. You said there's 18 ft between

[1:51:22] houses. There is no house in Mary Oaks that is 18 ft apart. They're right up

[1:51:27] there. I deliver their mail. 90% of them are up there. So, that is

[1:51:32] not so. Um um my question, I don't need to answer,

[1:51:36] why aren't we going against the county? And this is a question. Y'all came to

[1:51:41] us, we approved y'alls a R1. We give y'all an opportunity. Y'all went

[1:51:47] to the county, y'all did not like our R1. Why did you go to the county?

[1:51:50] Because you didn't like the county, so you come back to us.

[1:51:53] » So, we got We went back to the county and what we presented was R1.

[1:51:58] Well, it was R2, R3 back then, but effectively we're looking for R1, R2s,

[1:52:03] R3s. Um and so, that was not

[1:52:07] agreed upon. Um once again, I think it doesn't go with the comp plan to build

[1:52:13] 500 homes of the same type over and over again. Uh comp plan

[1:52:17] clearly does not state that that's your goal.

[1:52:20] Um it's not our goal, either. Uh let's offer homes in a nice

[1:52:24] neighborhood to multiple buyer types and multiple people. I think that the the

[1:52:29] emergency services folks and the teachers and everything matter.

[1:52:32] » All right. >> Right? They should be able to live in

[1:52:33] that neighborhood. >> that. Um

[1:52:34] the next one was like you um We did agree to all R1. You said we want

[1:52:39] multiple. No, we did not agree to R1, R2, R3. So, no, we did not agree to

[1:52:44] multiple. So, um

[1:52:47] And y'all didn't like that, that's why y'all went to the county and came back.

[1:52:51] As you can see, I'm not a BS, excuse me. Um

[1:52:54] You said the width lot for R1 the requirement is 70.

[1:52:57] » That's right. >> You're saying if you're going to go

[1:52:59] back, you're only going to make it 50. That does not meet R1 requirement.

[1:53:04] Um >> Is that a question or is that what

[1:53:06] you're saying? >> Okay. Um

[1:53:07] » Is that a question or >> And the

[1:53:10] » you said, "Okay, so we're actually the county is in litigation right now

[1:53:14] addressing this matter." I don't understand why we're even addressing it

[1:53:18] until that gets taken care of. Everybody in here, I live in a trailer.

[1:53:23] Not ashamed of it. Ain't nobody in here out here live in a mobile home.

[1:53:28] Um not ashamed of it. Um but would anybody else want anybody on this board

[1:53:33] want this in their subdivision? Does any of y'all live in a subdivision?

[1:53:39] Um Uh and I don't I don't like being feel

[1:53:43] like we're being pressured. You got two times in this thing that says

[1:53:47] um you said uh well, first you said it was

[1:53:50] previously approved by the county, which it was not. It was shot down.

[1:53:55] Um and then

[1:53:57] um in this thing you said, "If the property

[1:54:01] is not annexed into the city, the property should be developed in Lawrence

[1:54:05] County development standards." Once again, you mentioned that again.

[1:54:10] "If the site is not annexed into the city limits, the development will occur

[1:54:14] prob- probably with more lots that is currently being proposed here. If and

[1:54:19] not annexed, the city is obligated to provide services like fire and police."

[1:54:24] So, basically you give us two ultimatums that if we don't accept it, you're going

[1:54:28] to the county anyway. So, you're pushing us. You went to the county, but you came

[1:54:31] back. >> So, let me answer the question. So, I

[1:54:35] with that, I was asked a question um

[1:54:39] directly of "What happens if this is denied?" I was asked that question. I

[1:54:44] said, "Well, my answer to that, you can look back at the video. My answer to

[1:54:48] that was well,

[1:54:51] I'd rather not be penned into a corner and have to do that. I'm bringing

[1:54:55] something that I think is better here. It's less lots, it has better amenities

[1:54:59] to the city, it gives city impact fees. But we are approved in the county. I

[1:55:04] have a judge order that states it and yes, anyone on earth can appeal a

[1:55:08] decision. There are inmates on death row that appeal decisions. Do Does that make

[1:55:13] them correct? No. And I have our attorney here. If anybody want Well, if

[1:55:17] anybody wants

[1:55:21] » We have an approved site plan. So, if anybody wants He was attorney on the

[1:55:23] case. If you have any questions on the appeal itself, happy to have him answer

[1:55:27] them. Look, we have a signed order by a judge that agreed with us on three

[1:55:32] counts. I've never in my career seen a case won on three counts where the

[1:55:36] municipality is hard enough to get one. Three.

[1:55:40] It There is If there's 10% of appeals in the United

[1:55:44] States that get approved and this one has a less percent chance of that.

[1:55:49] I've seen these. And if you want

[1:55:52] comments from our attorney who's on the case, sitting in that courtroom.

[1:55:55] I mean, would y'all like him to speak on it?

[1:55:58] » I have some questions for him. >> Well, I got one more question and I'm

[1:56:01] done with the BS. Um Um

[1:56:06] This property, he's I don't see him here sitting here, but somebody has offered

[1:56:11] the same amount of money to Mr. Wyman or whoever owns this land

[1:56:15] as y'all. But they're basically saying his money ain't no good. So, there's

[1:56:19] something behind the scenes if this guy is wanting

[1:56:23] to purchase for the exact same price. There's something behind the scenes.

[1:56:27] » It would be a contract.

[1:56:31] » Money talks. >> That's That's Well, no, I mean, a

[1:56:33] legally binding contract, which we are out of due diligence on and we are

[1:56:37] buying the property. So, no, no one else is going to buy the property. I'm going

[1:56:40] to own it. We've already come out of due diligence.

[1:56:42] We've already let our money go hard. We are buying the property. We are going to

[1:56:46] develop it.

[1:56:49] I mean, just being honest. >> He said they're going to develop. Y'all

[1:56:52] heard it. Go Kirkwood. I'm done. >> No, no, if I can follow that, thank you.

[1:56:57] I just have a question. quick question. Sure.

[1:57:01] » to address some of the comments that the young lady made here.

[1:57:05] And she was asking, why do we want the R3 zoning before we can do it in our

[1:57:09] lot? When I started building houses 40 years

[1:57:13] ago, we started building the small lot was 100 ft wide, and people built on big

[1:57:19] lots, we used septic tanks, and the lot was a smaller part of the price of the

[1:57:25] house. Over the years, lots have become a much more expensive

[1:57:30] part of the house. The impact fees, the sewer, the water have have risen and

[1:57:37] risen now to where lots are

[1:57:41] of the sales price of the house 25%. If you take that back to the raw numbers

[1:57:46] of building a house, and we're just talking about sticks and

[1:57:50] bricks and labor, a lot is really more like 35-40% of the cost of the house.

[1:57:57] It's the builder's response to the change in the economics of of the

[1:58:02] nation to build a smaller lot so they can build

[1:58:05] houses for people.

[1:58:08] And we all know that the the pyramid of people buying houses is much bigger at

[1:58:15] the bottom than it is at the top. You have the

[1:58:18] wealthy individuals that right now in Greenville are buying houses on acre

[1:58:25] lots that are 4,500 sq ft that sell for over a million dollars.

[1:58:30] But and I'm on the the South Carolina Board

[1:58:34] of Housing Finance and Development. We deal

[1:58:38] with affordable housing all the time. There is a huge pool of buyers that need

[1:58:43] to be thought about, and I'm not talking about

[1:58:45] subsidized housing. I'm talking about your firemen, your teachers,

[1:58:49] people that make the 45,000 and their wife

[1:58:53] makes 45,000. They want to buy a nice house, but to get on a lot that they can

[1:58:59] afford for a house that's 275,000,

[1:59:03] 325,000, we need to have the small lot because if

[1:59:08] we were developing lots that were 120 ft wide now, we would be talking about 120,

[1:59:15] 150,000 dollars to develop those lots by the time we could develop them and mark

[1:59:20] them up and get them to the market. Then we'd be

[1:59:23] talking about 600,000, 700,000 dollar houses.

[1:59:29] And your buying pool in Clinton for that is

[1:59:33] small. So we're we're trying to provide housing

[1:59:38] for people for the average person that lives

[1:59:40] [clears throat] in Clinton. >> Just coming to what you said, R2 and R3,

[1:59:44] we have anywhere the numbers keep changing

[1:59:47] anywhere from between 1,200 and 1,900 homes proposed already at that level

[1:59:52] that are not R1. So that's why from this level we're trying to get all R1 there

[1:59:57] because the 1,900, 1,200 homes are already R2, R3. We've got plenty of

[2:00:03] R2 and R3 going up. >> And I think we're giving you a good mix.

[2:00:06] You know, I know that over and over again 2,200 homes in the pipeline was

[2:00:11] mentioned in planning and and really number one, those aren't getting all

[2:00:15] eaten in a year. We know that if you've been through development and you know,

[2:00:19] small chunk of that a year. So it's not really contributing 2,200 in a year. Um

[2:00:23] the other part is in the state of South Carolina

[2:00:26] currently is short almost 90 to 100,000 homes.

[2:00:32] 2,200 homes ain't going to be a drop in that bucket.

[2:00:34] And and believe me, everywhere in the state

[2:00:37] is growing. You're seeing it. Your industrial park is coming here. You got

[2:00:40] the baseball field coming here. This is the large This is the fastest, highest

[2:00:44] influx state in the nation right now. Unless we want to

[2:00:49] put up walls, that's not stopping. >> Yep.

[2:00:53] » And right now the state is short 90 to 100,000 homes.

[2:00:57] And that's data from the HBA happy share.

[2:00:59] » Okay, let's go to Mr. Kirkendall. So,

[2:01:03] I'm just looking at some of the litigation information that you've got

[2:01:07] going on right now. And this is no this is no this is

[2:01:10] [clears throat] lawyer question right now.

[2:01:11] » Okay. All right. >> But I was surprised to see that you've

[2:01:14] got Bush River Sporting Clays and Properties as a partner.

[2:01:18] » Seller. No, sir. That's the seller. >> Oh, it's the seller.

[2:01:22] » Seller. They were on the case. They were an interested party in the case. Yes,

[2:01:26] sir. Just cuz they were the seller and they were being impacted by the

[2:01:28] decision, too. So, they decided to sign on. Yes, sir.

[2:01:31] Yes, sir. >> That's all we have.

[2:01:34] Mr. Smith. >> Um a few minutes ago you said that you

[2:01:38] offered to help with the downtown revitalization. Can you say I haven't

[2:01:42] heard that? >> Yes, sir.

[2:01:44] He was talking about the empty buildings and stuff.

[2:01:47] And I told him first asked you all had an economic development group, you know,

[2:01:52] inside the city or town. And they are everything. And I told him

[2:01:57] that I did would not mind meeting with them

[2:02:01] or other business people and see if we could

[2:02:03] get someone in those places. Just like I don't mind meeting with Ingles when we

[2:02:09] start things down there to see if Ingles would upgrade y'all's Ingles down there.

[2:02:14] You know, because Ingles don't want another

[2:02:16] another grocery store anywhere, you know.

[2:02:19] And we think with this coming and talking to Ingles they would do that for

[2:02:24] y'all. I would think. Um you know, but I don't mind like I

[2:02:28] said, every one of y'all can have my phone number, but I don't mind helping

[2:02:32] y'all try to bring some industry some restaurants or or businesses in. More

[2:02:37] than happy to do that at no cost right now. I told him I'd be more happy to

[2:02:42] meet with him and help him. >> And he did see each day that he's doing

[2:02:46] and has done that in Greenwood and South side Greenwood cuz that's I mean you you

[2:02:49] could be a better now, but that's an area that's been largely neglected in

[2:02:53] Greenwood for years, right? >> So, in Greenwood, which we had 100%

[2:02:56] support, hadn't had anybody upset, uh

[2:03:01] is that we're in South end of Greenwood, which I live

[2:03:04] there. Uh and we've never had anything like our

[2:03:08] neighbors on North end or East end or West end.

[2:03:11] So, we're finally bringing restaurants down there uh

[2:03:15] and and other aspects of businesses along with some homes as well, but we

[2:03:21] need those homes to get the businesses. Now, we're starting to do a couple of

[2:03:26] those businesses soon uh before the homes get built. Uh but uh but people

[2:03:31] are thankful for it. And and that's why I really I mean I respect him. I mean I

[2:03:36] really do for coming here. But, we'll do you know, I've offered I think they'll

[2:03:41] tell you I've offered my hand if anything I can help y'all with

[2:03:45] you know, down here. Plus, it's a possibility we could look for some

[2:03:48] grants too and work with y'all uh trying to get those places filled, especially

[2:03:53] since you got homes coming here. You know, all over the 2,000 homes.

[2:03:57] » And he and I also offered happy to have community meeting and get feedback on

[2:04:02] commercial or different elements. Happy to do that. We we have met with some

[2:04:05] citizens, but I mean I'm happy to have a community community meeting here that.

[2:04:09] Um I mean there's not not every builder and every developer's going to do that.

[2:04:13] Right? But, we're the local builder. We did.

[2:04:17] » Okay, let's jump in to Mr. Smith. >> Uh Mr. Wham, are you

[2:04:21] are you knowledgeable about the county process? Could I ask you a couple

[2:04:24] questions about that? >> A little bit. Yes.

[2:04:26] » Okay. Um so, when we if we have something already in the city and the

[2:04:31] and a developer comes and wants to build it up, it goes to planning commission,

[2:04:34] they make a recommendation, and then we vote on whether we to approve it or not.

[2:04:38] How is that the same or different from how that process happens in the county?

[2:04:44] » It's a little different. Um there's similarities, but uh the county

[2:04:48] has I think you you may have read it in that order.

[2:04:52] They have what's called the technical review committee.

[2:04:55] Which is more of a I'd say the county's approaches maybe more administrative.

[2:04:58] Y'all been through it, maybe you can comment on that.

[2:05:00] » Yes sir. >> Um

[2:05:01] » The TRC. >> Where the TRC could have actually

[2:05:03] approved Well, let me back up.

[2:05:07] That is not the case anymore. I understand the county has changed that

[2:05:10] in large part because of what happened with this development. So,

[2:05:14] um the ordinance before said that um either the TRC

[2:05:20] uh could approve of plat of [clears throat]

[2:05:22] subdivision plan or the planning commission uh and or the planning

[2:05:26] commission. So, it left it open so that the TRC could actually approve that plan

[2:05:32] without going to the planning commission. And that's actually what

[2:05:35] happened, which is actually why they won the

[2:05:37] » Mhm. >> lawsuit is because

[2:05:40] they had vested rights. The TRC had approved it, that was

[2:05:44] that was correct most likely under the county ordinance

[2:05:47] at the time. Again, the county has has shifted. I think you probably have to

[2:05:49] get both now if you were to bring something before the county.

[2:05:53] Um so, the county has a planning commission, but I think before it was

[2:05:56] based on if you had a variance, you had to go to the planning commission. If

[2:05:59] there was no variance or it was a small subdivision,

[2:06:03] the TRC could stamp it and that would allow them to move forward. So,

[2:06:07] um >> The county doesn't really have any

[2:06:09] zoning, does it? >> Yes sir.

[2:06:11] » The county doesn't have any zoning. >> It's up It's up to them.

[2:06:14] » I mean, it's No, that's correct. Which adds a layer obviously to this process

[2:06:17] because you you have the you have the say in whether or not this

[2:06:22] comes into the city. You want this property within the city limits.

[2:06:24] [clears throat] And that's effectively what

[2:06:27] » In in the >> One of the major differences between

[2:06:28] what the county did and >> what you're doing.

[2:06:30] » In getting that letter, the the TRC approval letter, what that explains is

[2:06:34] every department has to check it to say does it meet your ordinances

[2:06:38] that are publicly posted. When a developer goes before a planning

[2:06:42] commission with a site plan that robust, with that much due diligence, they've

[2:06:44] spent probably over a hundred thousand dollars to get there. Um not very

[2:06:48] litigious. You look back at my history, don't have

[2:06:51] a lot of those on my rap sheet, but I will tell you this,

[2:06:54] when I get an approval letter from TRC that says we have met to the T

[2:06:59] publicly posted ordinances and in good faith of those publicly

[2:07:03] posted ordinances, spent six figures to get there,

[2:07:08] and then it goes and is inexplicably denied by a planning

[2:07:12] commission with a TRC approval letter, that's that's why we we found ourselves

[2:07:16] in that situation. >> So, as soon as the TRC

[2:07:19] gave you approval, you were allowed to build.

[2:07:22] » The the site per the judge's order, the TRC approval letter

[2:07:27] did confirm that we met all ordinances and that was deemed as an approval.

[2:07:32] And correct me if I'm wrong. Um

[2:07:35] » Can I make I'm going to have a question for him, too. So, can you step up?

[2:07:38] » Um and so, the site plan is approved and vested per the judge's order. It's

[2:07:42] on the judge's order. >> I saw that.

[2:07:45] » Yes, Judge Vance's order does state that as of

[2:07:49] June 23rd, which is when that TRC approval letter came through, uh that

[2:07:54] vested rights uh they were vested at that time.

[2:07:58] Uh in the alternative, Judge Vance also ruled um that

[2:08:03] if uh for argument's sake, if the county was allowed to uh

[2:08:09] subject uh [clears throat] Cambridge Farms to the uh dual uh approval process

[2:08:15] as they did, which Judge Vance found that that was not proper, um that

[2:08:22] the planning commission's decision to with uh to refuse that duplicate

[2:08:26] approval was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion,

[2:08:30] and it lacked any legal evidence to support it. Um Judge Vance's order

[2:08:35] specifically found that neither the Technical Review Committee nor the

[2:08:38] Planning Commission identified any specific deficiencies, uh

[2:08:42] non-conformity, or violations of applicable ordinance with the respective

[2:08:46] preliminary plat. Um in addition, the order stated that the court finds

[2:08:51] the petitioners complied with every applicable requirement of the county's

[2:08:55] ordinance and regulations. And so, along with being

[2:08:59] um unlawfully subjected to the dual review

[2:09:03] process, um their Lawrence County Planning

[2:09:07] Commission's decisions arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

[2:09:10] » So, I'm sure it's part of the process, but I

[2:09:13] don't understand it. If you had If the TRC said they approve and you're allowed

[2:09:17] to build, how did you end up in front of the

[2:09:20] Planning Commission and the County Council?

[2:09:23] » So, in front of the county

[2:09:25] » Council or in front of Planning? >> Yeah, so we went in front of Planning.

[2:09:28] I'm sorry if I misspoke. >> You We were never in front of County

[2:09:31] Council? >> There There is no

[2:09:34] So, it's open zoning, so we we would not have to go in front of County Council to

[2:09:39] ask for zoning. Right now, we're in a zoning annexation meeting.

[2:09:43] With open zoning, that step skips, and you go straight to a site plan approval,

[2:09:47] which is with Planning Commission, just like you guys. Site plan approval would

[2:09:50] be after this if you voted, "Hey, we're good with this today and in the next

[2:09:54] reading." Our next step would be we would go and create a

[2:09:57] full set of construction drawings, a lot of detail, a lot of questions to ask,

[2:10:01] and then we would go in front of your Planning Commission. Well,

[2:10:04] that's the step you just go You You can go straight to, don't have

[2:10:08] to go straight to, but they tried to push us to even even with the

[2:10:14] approval. >> How long do you expect the appeal to

[2:10:17] take? >> So, as of right now, initial briefing of

[2:10:21] that appeal is not complete. Um I believe off the top of my head, uh this

[2:10:25] coming Friday, the first brief from Lawrence County is due. Uh that is

[2:10:29] assuming no extensions. Um

[2:10:32] initial briefing can take anywhere from probably

[2:10:36] two to three months. Um maybe longer depending on

[2:10:40] um extensions. As far as the time when that appeal will

[2:10:44] be heard in front of the court of appeals, that can range I mean anywhere

[2:10:50] from a year to two years. Um after that, the time that it would take for the

[2:10:55] court of appeals to issue an opinion uh could be an additional year if not

[2:10:59] longer. Um so I mean it could end up being a

[2:11:02] multi-year process. >> So, does that have anything to do with

[2:11:06] y'all wanting to be in the city because that that just goes

[2:11:09] away and >> Like I mean, if we're going to

[2:11:14] take the time to go through the appeal process, which

[2:11:18] at this point, if you really read the facts of the case, it is very strong.

[2:11:22] And correct me if I'm wrong, they cannot bring in any new facts. It is a review

[2:11:25] of the facts of the case as it stands. >> Uh

[2:11:27] yes, so the appellate um the

[2:11:31] standard of your review would be the facts as it was there presented in front

[2:11:34] of the planning commission. That record has been set.

[2:11:37] Um that was set in the circuit court. >> I mean

[2:11:43] So, with that said, we can go forward

[2:11:46] with that and and we're willing to fight that battle, go down that route. The

[2:11:50] county is going to spend money on that legally.

[2:11:53] We will spend money on it. Right? We had a site plan here that

[2:11:59] we spent a lot of time on with the city and

[2:12:04] made better per the vision of the city.

[2:12:08] So, while we're in this process right now, instead of sending

[2:12:11] the county down a path where they're going to spend a whole lot of money

[2:12:14] and we're going to be be to go do it anyways, you know,

[2:12:17] why not take it forward with a city that has seemed

[2:12:21] like they appreciate the site plan, appreciate

[2:12:25] this and the growth, need it, right,

[2:12:28] and can benefit from it. So,

[2:12:30] » Mr. Causey, I want to say something. The other week,

[2:12:33] uh when he was asked the question, it wasn't that he was being rude. They

[2:12:37] said, "Are you going to go ahead no matter if we

[2:12:40] approve this or not? If we don't approve it, are you going to

[2:12:44] go ahead and build with these 600 something homes?"

[2:12:47] And what what he's got in there and what's passed through the county

[2:12:53] through that court, then yes, he would. He wouldn't be a

[2:12:57] rude man. They asked a direct question about it. So, [clears throat] I want you

[2:13:01] to understand that. He wouldn't be a rude man.

[2:13:03] » And I'm not being rude to you, you. I I'm really not being rude to you. I have

[2:13:07] read the body language the whole time. I was over there. Um

[2:13:11] and I have no problem with R1. I voted R1. That's what we passed the first

[2:13:15] time. I don't like to be lied to. I don't like

[2:13:18] to be BSed. And I'm not talking to you. I think I've been very polite, you as

[2:13:22] well. Um I don't mind speaking with him as an

[2:13:25] individual. But that's what he told me it's going.

[2:13:29] » The way I look at it, it's a 117

[2:13:33] 117 homes less and you all would

[2:13:38] gain the taxation. And and that's the plus side, I guess

[2:13:42] you'd say. >> That that brings up a point I wanted to

[2:13:45] make, and that's

[2:13:48] Planning Commission did approve or recommend that we approve this as all

[2:13:51] R1, and we and we did that. And many people in this room were at that

[2:13:55] meeting. And at that time, everybody was telling

[2:13:59] us, "You have to do what Planning Commission recommends."

[2:14:02] And now Planning Commission is recommending we approve this plan, and

[2:14:04] they want us to go against what Planning Commission recommends.

[2:14:08] So, I don't know what to do with that, but

[2:14:12] we have we already approved more lots than this.

[2:14:15] Um the the wetlands concerns, all all that

[2:14:19] stuff, the traffic, it's all valid. We voted to approve it with more homes.

[2:14:24] They've come back, in my opinion, with a better plan.

[2:14:27] Um the commercial, people have concerns about that. I think I hope we can

[2:14:32] fix the issue with the R3. I think we can, especially if they're going to do a

[2:14:35] development agreement that gives us time to do a similar We changed our zoning

[2:14:40] based on the concerns from a lot of the crowd

[2:14:44] that they were going to build they wouldn't build what they said they

[2:14:46] would. But R R2 and R3 allowed multifamily, and people said, "Well, as

[2:14:50] soon as you give them that zoning, that's what they'll do." So, we created

[2:14:53] two new zoning designations. Um

[2:14:57] I think coming back with with R2S and R3S, that's kind of what we

[2:15:02] asked them to do. It's fewer homes, and we we fixed the zoning. I know

[2:15:06] people still don't like the narrow lots. I I get that. Um that's valid. But, the

[2:15:11] main concern I remember from the first meetings was that they would build

[2:15:15] multifamily, no matter what we did. Um

[2:15:19] to answer your question, Ms. Cogsdell, about would you live there? I would. I

[2:15:23] mean, I don't I don't have a problem with this type of neighborhood.

[2:15:27] Pool, cabana, 10-acre central park, athletic fields, cooking area, walking

[2:15:31] trails. Um I have I have cousins in Missouri

[2:15:34] that grew up in a neighborhood very similar to this,

[2:15:38] and I was always jealous when I went to their house. I lived in the middle of

[2:15:41] nowhere and had one neighbor. And some people want that, but some

[2:15:44] people want this. Uh I've I've been in a lot of neighborhoods like this. I've

[2:15:49] I've visited in them. I know people that live in them. My mother-in-law lives in

[2:15:52] a neighborhood similar to this. The people there all know each other.

[2:15:55] They get along. Um

[2:15:57] I don't I don't view this as something negative for Clinton. I think if you

[2:16:01] asked many people in Clinton, would you rather stay where you're at or move into

[2:16:04] this neighborhood, they would choose this neighborhood if they could afford

[2:16:07] it. Um

[2:16:11] So, that that's just my honest answer. If this was If something like this was

[2:16:15] being put in near my house, I'd I would be okay with that. And I'm

[2:16:20] just trying to be honest. I know people may not believe that, but that's my

[2:16:22] honest take on it. Um

[2:16:26] So, the and and to to to talk about the wetlands,

[2:16:30] I I've heard from so many people in this room and people that aren't in this

[2:16:33] room. I've also heard from a lot of people in the community that aren't here

[2:16:37] that speak positively about it, that see the positive attributes, that see how it

[2:16:41] will help our city both financially and with a customer base for downtown

[2:16:45] businesses. Um it's very hard to be the to be in a

[2:16:49] room where a bunch of people are against something and stand up and say, "I think

[2:16:52] it's a good idea." So, I don't expect to hear a lot of people in Clinton that

[2:16:56] would be positive about it. Um

[2:16:59] » Coming here. >> Co- coming here to speak in front of I

[2:17:02] mean, and even on like Facebook and things, there's no reason to put your

[2:17:04] neck on the line and say, "Well, I I kind of like it or whatever."

[2:17:09] Um it just puts you in an awkward spot. >> [cough and clears throat]

[2:17:12] » As far as the the I do [snorts] want to clarify a

[2:17:16] couple things because the number 2200 has been in the planning commission

[2:17:19] meetings and different areas. I tried to get a an actual number on

[2:17:24] that, and the number that we have that I got from our planning

[2:17:28] um planning department,

[2:17:31] thought I had it up here. Uh is it 15 and 30, Phil? 1530.

[2:17:37] Um one of them that was on the initial list,

[2:17:41] one of them that was on the initial list, we we didn't approve. That was the

[2:17:44] one Mr. Meters, can you help me out by the ball our ball fields?

[2:17:48] » Red Complex. >> Valley Valley Acres.

[2:17:50] » Valley Acres. Um Hampton Woods is already done

[2:17:54] building, so they shouldn't be on the approved. They already exist, and I

[2:17:57] guess most of them are sold. And what was the other one that was on

[2:18:01] our list initially that got us to 1908.

[2:18:06] There was one that's no longer. Highland Park, was it?

[2:18:09] Okay, Highland Park, they're they've Are they decided not to move forward or

[2:18:13] we've Have we done something with that or previous

[2:18:22] Okay.

[2:18:33] Okay. So, I mean, that may still be a big number for people, but it's it's

[2:18:37] different than 2200 and the homes that we have the option to approve tonight

[2:18:43] doesn't even get us to 2200 based on what we have

[2:18:46] currently approved. Um couple more things I want to say. I

[2:18:50] know I'm going kind of long. Uh

[2:18:54] the development agreement, I think it's huge.

[2:18:57] Um we definitely have to have that in

[2:18:59] place, and I think that would ease a lot of people's minds.

[2:19:03] Um

[2:19:06] The the real issue for me tonight is that

[2:19:11] whether or not you think it's a good chance or bad chance, I've read the

[2:19:14] court documents. Um I I'm not going to put a percentage

[2:19:19] on it. It looks like they have a good case. Y'all got approved before the

[2:19:22] moratorium was put in place. Um some people may think that the appeal

[2:19:27] has a chance, and maybe it's also people just want that process to happen because

[2:19:31] it would delay these guys 2 years. I'm not sure.

[2:19:34] Um but it looks like it has a great chance

[2:19:38] of being upheld, in my opinion. Um so, the the greatest risk to the city

[2:19:44] tonight, in my opinion, is that we don't approve it,

[2:19:48] and then they build anyway in the county,

[2:19:51] and we've still got the wetlands issue, we've still got flooding, we've still

[2:19:54] got traffic. We've mentioned a lot of cons to the project.

[2:19:58] Um and there are I I see a lot of positives to it, but we've talked a lot

[2:20:01] about the negatives. And the

[2:20:05] the best chance of what could happen is that it gets approved in the county

[2:20:09] anyway and it's built and those problems all exist anyway and we don't get any of

[2:20:13] the impact fees or the taxes. Um

[2:20:18] I I've heard a lot of you. I've talked to a lot of you.

[2:20:22] The the part that makes this job hard is that even though we hear concerns,

[2:20:27] so many of them are valid and and good concerns and things that we're going to

[2:20:30] do everything we can to fix. We still have to vote yes or no

[2:20:34] on things. And what puts me over the edge, I'll I'm going to vote yes

[2:20:38] tonight. What puts me over the edge is knowing

[2:20:41] that there's a good chance that it's going to happen anyway.

[2:20:44] Um so we've spent all this time talking about do we like the project or not?

[2:20:49] But there's still a good chance hanging over our heads that it's going to be

[2:20:52] built whether we do like it or not. Um

[2:20:55] I haven't taken that as a threat, but I I've I've just seen that's probably the

[2:20:59] reality. Um so

[2:21:02] acknowledge I I'll just acknowledge the risks involved with voting no or tabling

[2:21:06] it. Um

[2:21:08] that those are the positive things about it. I obviously don't see neighborhoods

[2:21:11] like this as something super negative. I feel like we're talking about data

[2:21:14] centers and it's just homes where people are going to live.

[2:21:18] Um I understand people don't like it. Some people say, "I don't want to live

[2:21:22] that close to my neighbors." If people didn't like this type of neighborhood,

[2:21:25] they wouldn't buy the homes. And we have people calling us all the time looking

[2:21:29] for exactly this. Um

[2:21:32] You add on the risk that I mentioned, that that's why I'm going to vote yes

[2:21:36] tonight. That's all I have. >> Corey You Bill Megan and we'll speak

[2:21:39] back to Danny. I have no problem with the layout or whatever. All these

[2:21:43] amenities are great. And if you remember there in the first time it came through,

[2:21:47] it got it was a big issue. And the only way we would pass it was as R1. That's

[2:21:52] the only way it got passed. I don't have a problem. If we could go all R1, I

[2:21:56] absolutely have no problem with this. I'm

[2:21:59] they saying single family, whatever. And I've told this to Megan before. My

[2:22:02] trailer does not belong in Mary Oaks. I know that.

[2:22:07] And I mean, if it goes all R1, I'll tell you, yes, I'll vote yes. But it right

[2:22:12] now, I'm a no. But and I think it's a great layout, but

[2:22:16] just you got R1 in the front, well, then you got R3, just say BP and my trailer

[2:22:21] at the back. Well, these other 400 homes has got to go back through R1. So, these

[2:22:26] people that's done spent $450,000 on a home,

[2:22:30] well, you got me and my little beep beep raggedy car coming through this nice

[2:22:34] neighborhood. And I'm just saying, I'm not being

[2:22:36] smart. I'm just Look, I'm from this side of town. I apologize,

[2:22:41] but and I'm not being smart. I'm just stating facts.

[2:22:43] » All right. >> And we can agree to disagree.

[2:22:46] » Okay. >> My turn.

[2:22:48] » Okay. Um so,

[2:22:51] um first, can we have your wetlands um expert talk to us about Would that also

[2:22:59] Would you also speak to stormwater runoff?

[2:23:03] » Uh >> That's someone else.

[2:23:05] » Yeah, she have two experts to handle the wetlands.

[2:23:07] » Great. I'd love to hear from two strong women. I love it.

[2:23:12] Go. >> Uh so, my name's Laura Belanger. I am a

[2:23:15] wetland scientist. So, we deal specifically with identifying streams

[2:23:20] and wetlands on the undeveloped site. Uh we did our delineation in December of

[2:23:27] 2024. That's when we bring the field scientists out, and we're looking at

[2:23:31] soils, hydrology, vegetation, following Army Corps of Engineers standard

[2:23:37] practices. Then we had representatives from the

[2:23:41] Army Corps of Engineers out on site at the end of February 2025.

[2:23:47] Um so, they have been on site. Um and we have the wetland delineation report. It

[2:23:54] identified a total of 9.11 acres of aquatic resources on the

[2:24:01] site. Um and that included 6,879

[2:24:06] linear feet of tributary. Um

[2:24:09] what the Army Corps of Engineers regulates are those aquatic resources

[2:24:16] that are protected under the Clean Water Act. And so, that is our very narrow

[2:24:21] specialty is all we do is Clean Water Act regulations. So, we get brought out

[2:24:27] pretty early in the due diligence timeline.

[2:24:31] And so, what does this meet the requirements? Is it

[2:24:37] in line with Army Corps of Engineers?

[2:24:40] » Yes. So, what they have The way the process works is the first thing that

[2:24:44] happens is those resources that are protected under the Clean Water Act are

[2:24:50] identified on site. So, that was what happened in December.

[2:24:54] And we coordinated with Army Corps of Engineers. If they are going to do any

[2:25:00] work within those areas, a permit will have to be obtained from

[2:25:05] the Army Corps of Engineers before that can happen and the forest going to have

[2:25:11] to authorize that. Um based on their site plan, it looks

[2:25:15] like they have avoided the vast majority of impacts

[2:25:20] um to aquatic resources the way they've laid everything out.

[2:25:25] » Okay. >> So, then it will become a question of

[2:25:27] engineering, but the Army Corps has very specific

[2:25:32] rules on what they will approve. Um so, for example, road crossings have

[2:25:37] very specific culvert requirements. Those were just updated in March of this

[2:25:42] year. >> Okay.

[2:25:44] » So, that I think the site plan has to get further along to know what those

[2:25:48] impacts will be, but they will have to coordinate further with Army Corps for

[2:25:53] that. >> Thank you.

[2:25:54] » I appreciate scientific expertise, and I especially appreciate seeing women in

[2:25:59] STEM. So, thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:26:01] » Um so, you can speak to the storm water runoff. That would be fantastic.

[2:26:05] » Yes, ma'am. Chrissy Terrell Drake, I'm a partner at

[2:26:09] Bluewater Civil Design. Um I'm project manager on this. I've

[2:26:13] been involved with it for the past 2 years, so any questions you have, I can

[2:26:16] definitely answer. >> Well, tell me what speak to the concerns

[2:26:21] that people have um addressed especially regarding um the Bush River.

[2:26:26] » Absolutely. So, um just to piggyback off of what Laura was speaking about with

[2:26:31] those wetlands, >> [clears throat]

[2:26:32] » we're going to have two wetlands crossings for roadways. So, that is

[2:26:37] standard permitting procedures that we have to go through. We work with Laura

[2:26:41] all the time on those and what those regulations that we have to meet, and

[2:26:45] that is specifically because the property is bisected by a tributary. You

[2:26:49] cannot get to the back of that property without having an impact. Now, we have

[2:26:54] limited that impact to only be the road crossings at this point in time. There's

[2:26:58] nothing with our lots. We won't have grading outside of the what has to be

[2:27:03] for that road crossing and that culvert in any of the wetland areas, including

[2:27:08] there's buffers set to those those wetland areas as well with the

[2:27:12] delineations, and we're not near anywhere in those buffers, either.

[2:27:18] To piggyback off of some other issues that have come up um specifically with

[2:27:22] [clears throat] the Bush River. So, I believe I was asked this at planning

[2:27:25] commission, and I think there was just some confusion with the question. I was

[2:27:28] being asked to elaborate if there was an Army Corps of

[2:27:32] Engineer delineated report for the flooding.

[2:27:36] Your flood zones are established by FEMA, which is your Federal Emergency

[2:27:42] Management Agency. They do their own studies. They come

[2:27:47] through and they evaluate what those zones are. So, on our site specifically

[2:27:52] along that back edge, there's small parts of the site that have that zone AE

[2:27:59] signature on it. So, in that area, it is a flood zone. We cannot add any fill. We

[2:28:04] cannot do any disturbance. And there's a base flood elevation set that we have to

[2:28:09] design homes at least 6 ft taller than. I went ahead and ran a preliminary

[2:28:14] evaluation of what those base flood elevations are and where our closest

[2:28:19] roadway and uh lots that back up to that flood area

[2:28:24] is, and we're 20 ft in the air. Above what that established flooding

[2:28:30] elevation is by national data. So, there's nothing that we will be

[2:28:34] doing in that flood zone. When it comes to storm water, we also

[2:28:41] have state regulations that we have to meet.

[2:28:44] In the city of Clinton, that goes directly to SEDES.

[2:28:49] They evaluate our designs. We have peak rate attenuation that we have to meet

[2:28:54] for our development. There's watershed elevations in our ponds that we have to

[2:28:59] meet that are all state regulated. And those are who come out, perform

[2:29:04] annual inspections, and make sure everything in the site is per design and

[2:29:09] up to code. So, there's no

[2:29:14] detrimental Let me rephrase Let me rephrase that.

[2:29:18] Excuse me. At this point in time with our design

[2:29:23] meeting those state regulations, we are going to be at code there.

[2:29:29] We have enough space available that we are willing to go above. Just from my

[2:29:34] engineering my name is going on these plans. I'm

[2:29:37] liable. I'm a state licensed professional engineer. My number is

[2:29:42] 410730 if you want to look me up. I've got 12 years of experience.

[2:29:48] I would not feel comfortable putting my name on these plans without the

[2:29:51] designing to the 100-year storm. So, you have my guarantee as a partner

[2:29:56] in this company that that will be happening.

[2:30:00] We we sign an oath to not harm.

[2:30:05] To not perform any engineering that is going to cause issues and harm to

[2:30:10] downstream neighbors. So, I I hope that gives you a little bit

[2:30:15] of >> reassurance.

[2:30:17] » I also again, I appreciate women and still and I appreciate the

[2:30:22] the engineering creed >> [clears throat]

[2:30:24] » to do no harm. I mean, I I I I think we are

[2:30:29] uh as uh

[2:30:32] someone who believes in science, we're going to see more floods, more and more

[2:30:35] floods. That's just a fact um because um

[2:30:41] that's fact. Um so, I at least a 100-year flood standard is

[2:30:47] what have to be forward thinking of um but I

[2:30:52] I appreciate your input um and addressing the concerns of those um

[2:31:00] Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am.

[2:31:02] » Um Okay, I've got some other things.

[2:31:05] Um >> May I May I May I ask a follow-up

[2:31:08] question while she's up here, please? >> Will your report be done in phases as

[2:31:15] development occurs based on current structures and then as more added or do

[2:31:22] you do it on the front end in the beginning and then it's not done anymore

[2:31:26] till it's completed out?

[2:31:28] » So, we will look at it as a full build out development for our engineering

[2:31:32] calculations that we need. Cuz you have to take into account the whole thing

[2:31:35] being developed, all of that impervious area, the areas going into those ponds.

[2:31:39] Now, we may break our construction phasing out, but our hydrology and our

[2:31:44] report will be analyzed with the full build out.

[2:31:46] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:31:50] » Um thank you. I appreciate that. Um

[2:31:56] So, I

[2:32:00] First I'll speak to um the difference between county and city, just my view of

[2:32:06] it. Um I know this may not be the exact meaning of home rule, but home rule is

[2:32:12] that municipalities get to decide for themselves

[2:32:15] what um what is good for our municipality.

[2:32:22] And so, to say that because cuz the county

[2:32:27] is fighting it, uh whatever terminology we want to use,

[2:32:31] that we shouldn't move forward goes against that

[2:32:36] at least the spirit of home rule. Again, I'm not assured I know home rule means

[2:32:41] some different things. Some has a legal terms to it, but that we have the

[2:32:46] capacity as a a council to decide things for our municipality

[2:32:52] regardless of what as long as we're following state

[2:32:57] law, you know, we don't have to follow county. We we

[2:33:01] set more standards for zoning than they do.

[2:33:06] We would have more control over things as a part of our city annex. I think

[2:33:13] this fits well into our annexation plan, which has in the past we have always

[2:33:19] talked about moving out 72 as part of our annexation plan.

[2:33:25] I have chosen to live in this community for 18 years. I've raised all of my

[2:33:30] children. My youngest is starting her senior year tomorrow. Got a lot going

[2:33:35] on, but I love being here to represent our community.

[2:33:40] Um, I grew up in a very urban area. Um, houses

[2:33:45] very close together that I I lived on a peninsula on a peninsula in Florida.

[2:33:51] Probably one of the highest density areas, Pinellas County,

[2:33:55] in the country. Um, so I don't know. I grew up okay next to

[2:34:00] neighbors. Um,

[2:34:02] I live in a high-density area here, College View. I can hear

[2:34:07] uh, my neighbor Greg when he pulls into the driveway, which is right next to my

[2:34:11] bedroom, and know if he turns the light on or off in his, uh, driveway.

[2:34:18] And I I can't throw a ball to the mayor's house, but I know I could kick a

[2:34:23] ball to the mayor's house. And three he's three houses down.

[2:34:28] Um, I know there's always there's fear with change. There's so much fear with

[2:34:33] change. I remember a few years ago when there was change on my street

[2:34:38] when Thornwill asked to have a roadway opened to start the farm, and we were

[2:34:44] told that children were going to die, that it was unsafe. And as of now, no

[2:34:50] children have died on our road. Everyone's been safe, and I think most

[2:34:54] people would agree that it's been a positive addition to our city. Um, and I

[2:35:00] like being able to pass by it on my daily walk.

[2:35:05] Um, I

[2:35:09] don't think that commercial growth

[2:35:13] on that end of the city is mutually exclusive from growth down here. I think

[2:35:19] what we have to do is increase our median income, and the only way to do

[2:35:25] that is to increase our population. Um, our schools are not at capacity, and

[2:35:31] we do need to increase those. Um,

[2:35:35] and we need more teachers. Um, I work in special education, and it is a beast to

[2:35:42] find teachers who are adequately certified, who are willing to live. They

[2:35:46] all want to live in Greenville, um, and people don't want to commute, and

[2:35:52] um we are losing a lot of our qualified

[2:35:56] teachers, a lot of teachers that, um, some of you may have had who are aging

[2:36:02] out and have hung on for a long time, but will [clears throat] retire at some

[2:36:06] point. Um I was, um, in Fountain Inn

[2:36:14] uh, this last weekend.

[2:36:17] And it was so packed, I we couldn't find

[2:36:21] find parking and had to ditch our plans and go somewhere else, and I think those

[2:36:26] are issues we could only we would love to dream of having. And 20 years

[2:36:33] ago, I think we will all agree that that was not where downtown Fountain Inn was.

[2:36:37] It was not the place to be, but it is now, and it's partially because of um,

[2:36:42] the growth. And I I know it's scary. I know that change is scary, but we also

[2:36:49] have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Clinton. And

[2:36:56] if I again, and I don't see it as a threat. I know, I mean, I don't see it

[2:37:00] as a threat of they're going to build. That's just a the fact, and

[2:37:07] if we don't annex, we are losing out on and we will have to service them with

[2:37:13] fire. And if if we annex them, correct me if I'm wrong, Chief.

[2:37:18] Um you know, the traffic, as of right now,

[2:37:21] that's out of your jurisdiction, correct?

[2:37:24] Yes. But if we were to annex, you would be able to patrol that section

[2:37:30] of road. For speeding, for

[2:37:39] Okay. So that would extend our ability to monitor traffic, speeding, that kind

[2:37:46] of thing. Whereas right now, as it stands, without annexation, you would

[2:37:51] have you would have no ability Okay.

[2:37:56] Um so

[2:38:00] I I

[2:38:03] have looked at the plans when it was all R1, and it did look a lot more congested

[2:38:08] than this. It was that we you lost all of that green space between.

[2:38:14] This to me I I and I again, I know this is a

[2:38:18] bird's-eye view. Um is

[2:38:24] provides a lot more green space than an all R1.

[2:38:28] Um and

[2:38:30] I I have young adult children who A, think they'll never be able to

[2:38:35] afford a home. >> Yeah.

[2:38:37] » Period. Um

[2:38:40] the job market is dismal

[2:38:44] right now for young adults coming out of college.

[2:38:47] Um and to

[2:38:51] everyone I know has a boomerang child in their house right now.

[2:38:56] Um and would love to get them out.

[2:39:00] » [laughter]

[2:39:02] » This and and this would not I don't you know, not necessarily be affordable to

[2:39:07] it, but but they want to have something

[2:39:12] to aspire to. And And we are the fastest-growing state in the nation.

[2:39:17] More people moved to South Carolina last year than any other state, period.

[2:39:23] Um so, those are my Those are my thoughts.

[2:39:28] » Okay, thank you. >> You said that Mary Oak, I mean, and I've

[2:39:31] told this before. I mean I mean, everybody don't

[2:39:35] have to live in Mary Oaks. Everybody don't belong in Mary Oaks. I mean

[2:39:40] I mean, anybody can live there, I'm just saying. But, you got these other 1,900

[2:39:44] homes that if you can't afford a Mary Oaks home, then

[2:39:49] you go to the one of the other 12 or 1,900. I don't I live above my means

[2:39:54] just so I can fit in to go in Mary Oaks.

[2:39:59] » Okay. >> Can I say one thing

[2:40:01] » Sure. We're not getting ready to close yet. I'm going to talk first.

[2:40:04] » Well >> Huh.

[2:40:06] I really like the design. >> I think

[2:40:08] » Thank you. >> most everything we've got going

[2:40:12] uh you've come to the table with the more attractive design.

[2:40:16] » Thank you. >> But, I have to keep reminding myself

[2:40:19] that whether it's 2,200 or if it's 1,400 we have, at least, I'm going to say

[2:40:25] around 1,600 homes on the schedule right now.

[2:40:30] And we've, you know, we've talked about the schools' concerns about filling

[2:40:34] these classrooms. Those deals that we already have

[2:40:39] on our schedule is going to make

[2:40:43] a a big impact in the city of Clinton. And I know most of our focus has been on

[2:40:49] this right now. But, it seems like we've lost focus on

[2:40:53] these other areas. But those when we build rooftops where

[2:40:59] we've got already approved I want somebody to me that's not going

[2:41:04] to impact Clinton like we're like we're parading this to

[2:41:08] be.

[2:41:13] I'm waiting. >> I don't understand.

[2:41:15] » What we have already scheduled to be built in Clinton?

[2:41:19] Do you think it's not going to impact the city?

[2:41:21] » Of course. >> All right. How much do we need

[2:41:25] to get to the goals we're trying to reach?

[2:41:28] Do we want to become the upper the upper cities that's just

[2:41:33] covered with it? Or do we want to become the Fort Mills

[2:41:36] that my cousins that live over there say, "If you can avoid it, please do."

[2:41:41] Or Woodruff, "If you can avoid it, please do."

[2:41:44] » Well, what we can control is by zoning. And if we don't

[2:41:50] » we have. >> If we don't have If we [clears throat]

[2:41:53] are not part of the process, if we don't annex, we have no say over that zoning.

[2:41:57] And and they can and people can build in the county and do whatever they want.

[2:42:04] » So, I don't >> my focus question right now is

[2:42:08] have we not established

[2:42:11] credibility plans of building homes in this town

[2:42:16] already? Signed.

[2:42:21] » I I don't understand your question >> Okay.

[2:42:23] » about credibility. >> Okay.

[2:42:26] We've got homes scheduled and they're building them now at the Commons. 120.

[2:42:32] And then we've got those on Vance property. How many of those? 300?

[2:42:37] » Vance property was 175 in their [clears throat] first

[2:42:42] phase. >> First phase.

[2:42:43] » They didn't have any plans for the second phase.

[2:42:44] » Okay. All right. The uh The uh Wilder property property?

[2:42:52] » 135 town homes. >> All right. Then we've got uh

[2:42:55] the Dutton property? >> That was around 70.

[2:43:01] » And can you tell me what else we've got cuz we've got to get to 1,500 somewhere.

[2:43:05] » We got Shell Creek. >> Yeah.

[2:43:07] » That That was

[2:43:10] » Town Mountain >> 35 Shell

[2:43:12] » Springdale >> I've got the list.

[2:43:15] » We've got behind Truman orange juice house over there. No movement on that

[2:43:19] one. But we've got what?

[2:43:22] » What's up there? >> They came to us with a preliminary

[2:43:25] » playing >> And that's one of those that

[2:43:27] the 2-year deal is about up on. So, it'll can be referred reverted back to

[2:43:34] the original seller.

[2:43:37] » Okay. All right. And we've talked about

[2:43:39] traffic. Traffic's been a big concern about us cleaning this development up.

[2:43:45] The traffic, as I see it, is not going to be such such a bad spot

[2:43:51] right there where the the the development's going.

[2:43:55] Those employ Those people are probably going to be employed either in Columbia

[2:44:00] or in Simpsonville or Spartanburg. Their pattern of traffic is going to flood

[2:44:05] that ring road. And the schools like

[2:44:10] uh the uh the grammar school Eastside, the Pinewood High School,

[2:44:15] the middle school, all those areas are going to be high-density traffic areas.

[2:44:20] Because those those vehicles are going to be headed to 385 by 26.

[2:44:29] » Okay. >> And the ring road right now is

[2:44:31] four-lane. >> And it is a booger. You You You've been

[2:44:34] out there during school hours? >> Yes, I have.

[2:44:36] » Okay. >> Every day.

[2:44:38] » Okay, let me let me let me say something. It Some point The

[2:44:43] good thing about being in local government is we get to make all the

[2:44:46] easy decisions. And

[2:44:49] we get to to hear a lot of different things.

[2:44:52] One of the things when you're talking about

[2:44:55] um numbers and about all this traffic, I just wonder how we how we made it back

[2:45:02] in the '90s because right now we're down 2,000 people

[2:45:07] from '96 when Clanton Mills closed and Timken closed. And we're projected to go

[2:45:12] down in the next five or seven years 2,000 more. So, you know, we're going to

[2:45:18] go from we're worrying about traffic and we're not going to have any traffic.

[2:45:22] We're going to be we're we're going to be

[2:45:24] uh dark. I've I would

[2:45:29] Everybody that's talked to me and I've I've talked to folks, you know, I've

[2:45:34] been in this since 1996 and I've uh it's and it's you always do get um

[2:45:42] everybody that comes to these meetings is mostly against stuff.

[2:45:45] And but we also I've had numbers and numbers of folks that have said

[2:45:51] keep going, we're we're doing well, we want to grow. And we do need to grow. We

[2:45:55] either grow or you die. Is that's my opinion. I love this place. I'm I'm I'm

[2:46:00] like Fred Chapman used to say, Dr. Fred Chapman, he said when he was ran for

[2:46:05] school district, he said he was um he was in line at the grocery store one day

[2:46:10] and uh he had announced he was going to run

[2:46:12] for school board and he was behind two ladies in the grocery store and they

[2:46:17] were talking about who was running and they said some Johnny-come-lately just

[2:46:20] moved here. He'd only been here 20 years at that point in time. Well, I'm one of

[2:46:24] those 55 to 60-year Johnny-come-latelys who chose here, raised my children,

[2:46:30] raised my grandchildren, and and love Clanton. And so, I think, you know, what

[2:46:37] all of us are doing is trying to balance what's going to be good for Clanton and

[2:46:42] what's not. And and I think this is good for Clanton. Um

[2:46:47] the traffic Megan talked about um

[2:46:51] when all we lost um a lot of folks for a while,

[2:46:56] I I had the idea at one point to add on to you would talk about would you want

[2:47:02] this near you? Well, my idea was to come down Maple Street where Thornwell Farm

[2:47:07] is now, but add another block at least of houses right out there if Thornwell

[2:47:12] would have given up some of that pasture.

[2:47:15] Um that didn't work obviously, but the um

[2:47:19] there was a an outcry on having the farm uh open up. You know, I walk out my

[2:47:25] front door and I can look right right into everything and it's turned into the

[2:47:30] the only traffic problems we've had is from the same folks that were that

[2:47:36] drive drove fast before this thing was built and they've been living there a

[2:47:40] long time and I want to say anything. They may be kin to me at

[2:47:44] some point. I don't know, but it's it's um

[2:47:49] it's really been turned out to be a a good thing.

[2:47:52] One of the things that I've done that I've heard over the years we've been

[2:47:57] doing economic development, we've been the first back in 2002 when I first got

[2:48:02] elected mayor, we were trying to talk to people into

[2:48:06] skipping over Fountain Inn and Simpsonville and and Gray Court and

[2:48:11] Laurens and coming to Clinton cuz we're in the located in the absolute best spot

[2:48:16] in the state right here where these two interstates come together.

[2:48:20] Um manufacturers at that point in time said, "We'd love to be there, but you

[2:48:24] got no houses. You got no place for people to live."

[2:48:28] And you know, we're we're answering that. We're We're not right now

[2:48:34] the houses we've got on the books aren't going to grow as much. They're going to

[2:48:38] get us hopefully back up to sort of even.

[2:48:41] You know, it's I'm so I don't you know the traffic might be more but it might

[2:48:47] be the same as when everybody says we had this bustling downtown. Well, now

[2:48:52] that you know, we don't have that many people so downtown doesn't bustle as

[2:48:56] much. Um I think

[2:49:00] what I entered into all of this for was to try

[2:49:04] to make us grow in a smart way

[2:49:09] and so that this place would be fun. It would be everybody we went to a meeting

[2:49:14] Friday night and everybody said we ain't got anything to do. And you know, I

[2:49:19] said, well, we're working on that, you know, restaurants and that kind of thing

[2:49:23] is what everybody wants. Um all sort of amenities and it requires

[2:49:28] people. And that's the the the thing Fat's Cafe

[2:49:32] years ago for you know, when it was running fast, we stood out there to talk

[2:49:37] them into coming here and they said you don't have enough rooftops. You

[2:49:41] can't make it work. And we finally made them we finally got them talked them

[2:49:46] into coming and and they realized it you know, we got 50,000 more people that

[2:49:52] ride by on the interstate. But it's it's

[2:49:57] the decisions are hard. The decisions are are the implications are

[2:50:04] um are

[2:50:06] ch- you know, they change. They're they're difficult for some folks.

[2:50:09] They're not difficult for other folks. Um but this this project um I agree with

[2:50:15] Mr. Kirkendall the the is the best plan we've had, I think. The planning

[2:50:20] commission approved it and we've we've, you know, I've always voted with the

[2:50:26] planning commission so um I think it's a it's a good thing.

[2:50:31] It's going to take some work and it's going to take some, you know, folks

[2:50:35] getting along and understanding, but um

[2:50:40] I think we've talked enough and it's time to

[2:50:43] » Can I say one more thing? >> Yeah.

[2:50:45] » And I'd like to speak after Ninnie on one thing.

[2:50:48] Um we we just received I mean I let me start out different.

[2:50:54] Um

[2:50:56] we just received all the documents about the court case in the past I don't know

[2:51:01] I got some of them today. I tried to read through them as quick as I could.

[2:51:04] Um I I just want to reiterate I feel like

[2:51:08] and and I would I would ask the people that are against

[2:51:11] this project to consider also there is risk involved in this moving forward in

[2:51:17] the county. You may think they have a great case and they can win, but there

[2:51:20] is risk involved there. They could they could the appeal could lose and this

[2:51:24] could go forward in the county. At that time we lose all control over

[2:51:29] the product project. We have no development agreement.

[2:51:32] We have I don't think the project they presented

[2:51:35] to the county included some of the amenities if I'm correct.

[2:51:39] » That's correct. >> Um

[2:51:41] and we lose all the fees and property taxes and we still have like we

[2:51:44] discussed we're covering the police and fire and I know we have a contract and

[2:51:48] things, but we we essentially lose control of

[2:51:51] the project. Um

[2:51:54] I I don't know that I have enough information. I read through the the

[2:51:58] court's finding. I have not seen the appeal.

[2:52:02] Um maybe that's good information that we need to to deduct for ourself does the

[2:52:06] county have a chance on this appeal? Um

[2:52:11] but I feel like that's the most important thing to consider tonight not

[2:52:14] the merits of the neighborhood because the merits of the neighborhood we can

[2:52:17] discuss all night and get in the weeds about lot width and things like that.

[2:52:22] But if it's going to go up in the county anyway, I I would ask all of us to

[2:52:26] consider what amount of risk are we willing to take for that?

[2:52:29] » Right. >> Um because I don't want to see a year or

[2:52:32] two from now the appeal fails and it goes up and we're thinking well, we

[2:52:36] should have just had it in the city then. Why did we lose out on all that?

[2:52:40] If there people on council that feel like they

[2:52:43] don't have a good enough sense of what the appeal says or what what's going to

[2:52:48] happen how that's going to turn out, I would change my vote

[2:52:51] to table it. If if we feel like we can get more information that would help our

[2:52:56] decision because I don't I'm not comfortable with the level of

[2:52:59] risk right now where I see they're probably going to win in the county.

[2:53:04] » You say the county you think the county's going to win or they're going

[2:53:06] to win on appeal? >> I've only seen what the court said. I

[2:53:10] haven't seen the appeal. But what the courts what the court sent, they're

[2:53:14] going to have to get it overturned on three different

[2:53:16] » The authorities I mean the county

[2:53:18] » What the county's going to have to get it

[2:53:20] overturned on three different Is that correct, Mr. Wynn? They have to

[2:53:24] win all three or can they just win one? >> Well,

[2:53:28] um And I'll I'll let the developer's

[2:53:31] attorney talk about this, but um there is no

[2:53:36] you don't have any written material beyond that court order.

[2:53:39] So, the appeal is just a notice of appeal

[2:53:43] that's been filed by the county. And as he mentioned earlier, there will

[2:53:47] be briefs that have to be filed. So so all that information is it's not there.

[2:53:52] You have that court order is what is available.

[2:53:56] » Okay. >> And and that order is where they the

[2:53:58] judge ruled in favor of the developer. >> Yeah.

[2:54:02] » Um >> So, would you be able to start the

[2:54:04] process under that court order?

[2:54:08] » My understanding right now is that we would be able to start that process. We

[2:54:12] have deemed approval effective as of June 23rd, 2025. However, I think there

[2:54:17] will be practical implications of trying to get

[2:54:20] um you know, of permit from the county while this is

[2:54:25] on appeal. Um however, legally speaking, my understanding is that we are deemed

[2:54:29] approved and we are entitled to that. Yes, sir.

[2:54:32] » But they could Could they file a stay? >> They could attempt.

[2:54:37] I don't know what they would do. I can't really speak to them, but they may have

[2:54:41] an ability to try to stop that in some format.

[2:54:45] » Yeah. I mean, I I'll I'll finish with that. I'm I'm comfortable tabling if we

[2:54:49] feel like we can get more information. Um

[2:54:52] but but I I think the worst-case scenario is that it goes up anyway. All

[2:54:57] the people's concerns are still there.

[2:55:00] » So >> And it's not in the city.

[2:55:02] » If I may make a clarification, as far as the initial briefing and what

[2:55:06] would be decided, it would all be based >> [sighs]

[2:55:09] » on you know, kind of

[2:55:12] I don't know off the top of my head what the standard would be for Judge Judge

[2:55:15] Bantz's review, um but it would be similar to what Judge Bantz did. Uh the

[2:55:19] same arbitrary and capricious analysis. And they would have to find that Judge

[2:55:23] Bantz abused his discretion or somehow made an error of law on top of that. So,

[2:55:28] they would not necessarily They would be doing a review of, you know, again, what

[2:55:33] kind of the same material that was submitted to Judge Bantz. So, as far as

[2:55:36] new material coming out, uh the record is set. Um there is, my understanding,

[2:55:42] nothing new can be presented. It's all based on what was argued to the Planning

[2:55:47] Commission um and what supported that denial. Uh

[2:55:51] so, to a certain degree, the record is set.

[2:55:55] Um >> So, new information

[2:55:58] coming out is They're reviewing

[2:56:02] this, right? >> Correct. The record is set.

[2:56:06] » I understand. I I would I would be open to hearing from a neutral attorney as

[2:56:10] far as like someone that could give an opinion that I can't make on what chance

[2:56:15] the appeal has. And I I mean, I would even be interested in hearing from the

[2:56:18] people who are against this project, what level of risk are you comfortable

[2:56:22] with knowing that we lose all control of it and we have

[2:56:26] the best chance we have a development agreement. We have the best chance of

[2:56:29] making sure they do exactly what they say they're going to do and we lose

[2:56:33] total control if it doesn't go through the city. So

[2:56:38] I'm I'm saying I'm open to getting more information where we can.

[2:56:43] » And this is first reading, too. It's It's It's not It's not the final.

[2:56:49] » Mr. Mayor >> Good.

[2:56:50] » I'd like to make a motion to table it for a minimum of 2 weeks from today.

[2:56:57] Not to hear more about the design of the plan, not to hear more from pro and con

[2:57:03] about why the subdivision is not there, but to review

[2:57:07] the proposed comprehensive plan that is out for review,

[2:57:15] to get a copy of the development agreement that they're willing that they

[2:57:19] presented for us to review and have legal counsel look at from our side and

[2:57:27] and then have an independent attorney talk to us a little bit about the

[2:57:32] appellate process. Not to be pro or con, just to explain

[2:57:40] um what it is for us and then based on that information

[2:57:46] we finish the first reading

[2:57:49] to go from there. >> I would feel way more comfortable with

[2:57:53] that. >> Can I

[2:57:56] say something?

[2:57:58] Uh Danny, back to your first question. I meant to

[2:58:02] answer it and I didn't. Um the development agreement references a

[2:58:06] set of covenants that

[2:58:10] will run perpetually unless Council

[2:58:14] chooses to vote differently. So I did want to point that out. It's a 30-year

[2:58:19] It's actually a 30-year term, but it automatically extends for 10 years after

[2:58:23] that, successive periods of 10 years, unless

[2:58:27] council votes to change that. So, the city is a party to that. I just wanted

[2:58:31] to highlight that cuz that's part of that

[2:58:33] development agreement. It does have a set of covenants. So, just for your

[2:58:37] information, I know you were concerned about the

[2:58:39] um C or the R3 and the C3.

[2:58:43] » Yeah. Well, and that's the other thing I'd like

[2:58:45] » say that's that has not been addressed. >> That's what the other thing I would like

[2:58:49] for the city to come back and and tell us how quickly that could be

[2:58:54] handled. >> So, so that was one thing. Now, that is

[2:58:59] not a prohibited use currently in this draft. That was what I think Mr.

[2:59:04] Leishman sent, but I and I didn't get a chance to talk to him. Um but, that was

[2:59:08] something that needs to be highlighted. But, that should answer some of that

[2:59:11] your question. >> But, to to to Danny's Mr. Smith's point,

[2:59:15] and I'm sorry Danny used your first name like that. But, to me, we got a lot of

[2:59:20] documents today after 12:00 today that we were supposed to have prepared, to

[2:59:25] have studied, understood the ramifications, good or bad, and we were

[2:59:31] getting them that late today. To me, for us to make an informed decision

[2:59:37] that we feel comfortable for in our own heart

[2:59:42] and that we feel like is doing the right decision for this city, then I think we

[2:59:46] need the documents well in advance to have that informed decision. And then we

[2:59:50] do it more as a work session with this kind of information at hand.

[2:59:54] » So, to that, you've got a motion and a second on the floor

[2:59:59] which will have to be dealt with. Now, you can do a friendly amendment. I can't

[3:00:01] remember who made the motion and who made the second.

[3:00:03] » I did. Danny did. >> In other words, before your motion can

[3:00:07] be taken up, that really ought to be the the motion has on the floor has to be

[3:00:11] dealt with or >> I can offer a substitute motion, can I

[3:00:14] not? >> You could do a friendly amendment would

[3:00:16] be the would be the way to do it, but >> to my original motion?

[3:00:20] » I'm not sure who made the motion. >> No, Megan made the motion.

[3:00:24] Oh, you're talking about Oh, you're talking about with first reading A.

[3:00:29] » Correct. >> I thought a substitute motion could be

[3:00:31] made in the in the middle of a regular motion and that has to be dealt with

[3:00:35] before a regular motion can be handled. >> I'd have to check my Robert's Rules of

[3:00:39] Order. >> Hamburg.

[3:00:41] » [laughter] >> My understanding is you've got a motion

[3:00:43] and a second on the floor that >> And was in discussion.

[3:00:47] » discussion. >> I brought to the floor a new motion and

[3:00:50] it was seconded. >> think that can if you're not the

[3:00:54] the the motion maker, I don't think you can offer a sub

[3:00:57] » As a sub A substitute motion can be made by anyone.

[3:01:02] » I would never entertain a another motion unless the

[3:01:06] original motion was dealt with and um and or either amended by the

[3:01:13] the person that made the motion. I mean, I think that's the proper way to do it.

[3:01:17] So.

[3:01:20] » Should we just Well, I'll stand by.

[3:01:24] » Well, with this council of six tonight that

[3:01:27] I'm just saying that >> Yeah. I I'll

[3:01:37] Are you Are you all proposing a maximum of 2

[3:01:41] weeks, a minimum of 2 weeks, uh >> I I was just looking at my calendar. I I

[3:01:46] don't think we need to prolong this long and on and on.

[3:01:49] » No, uh >> But I think as long as we're given the

[3:01:51] documentation within the next 3 to 5 working days

[3:01:55] then we should that would give us 7 to 9 days to study it by the 17th or 18th.

[3:02:01] » And well, I'll be gone the last 2 weeks of August starting the 17th, but some

[3:02:05] people might be glad I'm gone, so. [laughter]

[3:02:08] And I'll be glad to be gone, too.

[3:02:12] » Okay. >> Well, that's easy.

[3:02:18] » Um I

[3:02:20] I I resend my motion or amend my motion to table it.

[3:02:25] Um

[3:02:28] » For 2 weeks? >> For 2 weeks.

[3:02:30] » Okay. Ms. Walsh um

[3:02:34] amends her motion to table this for 2 weeks.

[3:02:38] We'll need a second. >> You Well, Mr. Smith has to approve it.

[3:02:42] » Oh, I second that. >> Okay. So, I was thinking he might.

[3:02:46] Okay. Any any further questions or comments?

[3:02:50] » I do um if you take the 2 weeks, then I'm just like I just stated, I'm not

[3:02:54] here, so that's kind of just throwing a boat out the window.

[3:02:57] » Are you gone >> the 17th the 2 weeks. So, I'll be gone 2

[3:03:01] weeks 17th through the I'm going to Texas and Alaska.

[3:03:04] » Was 2 weeks part of your motion? >> It was. I can

[3:03:08] » You can do it before or after. I have no problem.

[3:03:10] » Let's just say before. >> That would be one.

[3:03:14] Well, that would give us one. >> Let's try after.

[3:03:16] » We could just move it to the next meeting, the 31st.

[3:03:19] » No. Um that I think if we move it to the 31st, that gives us 2 weeks if we decide

[3:03:26] in part five of this meeting that we move our September

[3:03:30] » we just table the dagum thing? >> That would be table to that.

[3:03:33] » That is table to it. You got to >> address it in

[3:03:36] 2 weeks. >> Okay. She's saying August 31st.

[3:03:39] » You'll be back by August 31st. >> I don't care.

[3:03:44] » When will you be back? >> We'll be gone on the

[3:03:48] » We can find a day but I think I think we need to make sure it's a time where we

[3:03:52] can all meet and that's the important part. I don't think it would look I

[3:03:56] don't think it's right to table and then come back without.

[3:03:59] » I agree. >> Ms. Coggins to

[3:04:00] » We wait? till the time that every council member is available.

[3:04:05] » I second that. >> the rules

[3:04:07] » We want you here. >> She made a motion. What do you want to

[3:04:09] make her do? >> [laughter]

[3:04:12] » I'm good. Whatever. >> Okay.

[3:04:13] » Y'all go ahead. >> Well, that would be what we're voting

[3:04:15] on, that we would table this to a time that is mutually beneficial

[3:04:21] to all seven council members. >> Okay.

[3:04:24] And we have a second. >> Second.

[3:04:27] » Okay. Anything else?

[3:04:32] If not, all in favor, please say aye. >> Aye.

[3:04:35] » All opposed, no. Motion carries.

[3:04:39] So, we are tabled until >> So, what do [clears throat] we set a day

[3:04:43] or no, we just table it until we find >> We table this till we find a day. We're

[3:04:47] not going to sit here and scrap it around right now.

[3:04:49] » We will have to find a day cuz one of our members is out.

[3:04:55] » [clears throat]

[3:05:05] » All right. Next Next order of business is Mr.

[3:05:12] » Say it again.

[3:05:16] » We're still meeting. Thank you.

[3:05:22] Please exit quietly. We're still in a meeting. We We're still got other stuff

[3:05:26] to talk about.

[3:05:30] » Thank you, sir. Um

[3:05:32] the next item on the agenda is for city council to consider amending

[3:05:37] uh of the agreement memorandum of agreement with the YMCA.

[3:05:43] Um the reason I'm asking for this is >> [clears throat]

[3:05:47] » um several months ago when we were

[3:05:51] working on building the recreation complex and most importantly,

[3:05:58] the baseball fields. We had a gentleman on staff that was up

[3:06:02] to speed, up to date on everything we needed to do with

[3:06:06] keeping the baseball fields playable, and that's a year-round

[3:06:12] um task.

[3:06:14] Um even though they may not be played on in the you know, in the cold of winter,

[3:06:19] but they still have to be taken care of. We lost that gentleman uh

[3:06:24] in December of this year December of last year.

[3:06:28] And so, I've been working with the YMCA, and they have someone on staff. They

[3:06:34] have a couple of guys on staff there that are capable of doing what we need

[3:06:37] to do. And I am requesting that we amend this

[3:06:41] agreement with the YMCA and give them 54,000

[3:06:46] in additional funds uh in addition to what the 223,000 we're giving them now

[3:06:53] in order for those two gentlemen to help us uh keep up the uh

[3:06:59] baseball fields at the recreation complex.

[3:07:02] And as time allows during those those days that they're there, they will also

[3:07:07] perform other duties as needed. >> Okay, we have a recommendation from

[3:07:14] staff to uh amend the YMCA memo- memorandum of agreement to make sure we

[3:07:20] can take care of our um our municipal um

[3:07:26] ball fields. I have a motion, Mr. Kirkendall second

[3:07:29] from Mr. Smith. Uh

[3:07:32] questions or comments? I think it's a good idea.

[3:07:35] » Have have have you completely >> [clears throat]

[3:07:38] » in your figures, this 54,000? Does it Does that include

[3:07:43] I mean, this it being a new position.

[3:07:48] Have Has everything been studied pretty good about what it's going to really

[3:07:51] take to have that person there.

[3:07:54] » They would just provide us with labor to keep those fields. Our budget is in the

[3:08:00] city's parks and recreation department. It's funded what we need to do to keep

[3:08:06] those fields up. They will drag them.

[3:08:10] They will keep the grass cut. They will make sure the grass is fertilized and

[3:08:13] weeded as as needed. And they will be there to

[3:08:17] line those baseball fields when we have games, between games,

[3:08:22] whatever is needed. >> Yeah.

[3:08:26] » So, yes, sir. >> Uh

[3:08:28] I just know it being such a new position, we've

[3:08:31] never owned the recreation facilities such as this.

[3:08:35] » Right. >> And uh that that 54 could

[3:08:39] may not be enough. >> Well,

[3:08:41] it labor-wise labor-wise, uh right now, yes, it will.

[3:08:46] And there is some more uh things that we'll bring to

[3:08:50] you later on as they develop, but there's a possibility at some point down

[3:08:54] the road those fields may be turfed. So,

[3:08:59] we would you know, they would still need some attention, but not

[3:09:03] what they get what they will have to have right now with having dirt and

[3:09:07] grass. >> So, would

[3:09:09] would this have to be um renewed annually?

[3:09:13] » Yes, ma'am. >> I just want to I know there has been

[3:09:17] some comment some There have been comments in the past

[3:09:21] about how much money we give the Y. What What's our monthly and then yearly

[3:09:26] um >> It's $18,000 a month. It's

[3:09:30] 18,500 at this time for $222,000 is what's budgeted uh in this year's

[3:09:37] budget. >> Okay. And I just I just want to I I mean

[3:09:40] I was um previously on the Y board um and

[3:09:46] I I that number has not changed in 20 years?

[3:09:51] » It's been quite a while. >> At least 15.

[3:09:54] » He's averaged this the last 2 years. >> Okay.

[3:09:57] » He raised it $500 a month last year and then this year.

[3:10:00] » Okay. >> So, we have tried to address that.

[3:10:02] » Yeah. Yes, my point is it's not been >> It's not drastic. We have tried to

[3:10:07] address it. >> Um so, I I just want it on the record

[3:10:10] that um

[3:10:12] And these are from um Mr. Nichols, the the head of the Y that

[3:10:18] And this does not include all the Our prog- Our money is specifically for

[3:10:23] sports programming, correct? Um They've spent 330,000

[3:10:30] year-to-date for this calendar year. I I assume they go by um

[3:10:37] a fiscal year of the calendar year. So, they're 3/4 of the way through their

[3:10:41] year on um programming, which includes all of um the sports plus some senior

[3:10:49] programming, um

[3:10:51] adult health wellness programming, which are things some some cities are able to

[3:10:56] provide. We don't currently provide. So, I

[3:11:00] I just want to say that every bit of money that we send them

[3:11:04] » Yes, we all speak to >> is being spent on the things we intend

[3:11:08] for them to spend it on. >> [cough]

[3:11:09] » I just want that on the record. >> I was going to ask, too, is there a job

[3:11:14] description for that position?

[3:11:17] » We are working on one at this time. I think the Y M C A already has one.

[3:11:22] But, since we will That person is employed by the Y.

[3:11:27] So, for the additional work, we're going to give them the $54,000

[3:11:32] to pay that person. They will not be an employee of the

[3:11:36] city. >> So, we're just doing a contract with Y

[3:11:39] to do the S. just >> just part of that Y M city contract.

[3:11:42] We're not really a hiring a person. >> Exactly.

[3:11:45] » I think that that takes us out of all of it.

[3:11:48] » Yeah, we don't have to worry about any of that kind of stuff.

[3:11:51] » Well, insurance. >> Insurance, benefits, benefits for them.

[3:11:54] » Where are we going to get the I mean, then just saying I'm not being smart,

[3:11:57] you know, but saying we're broke, you know, where is where we I mean, just

[3:12:01] being You know, say can't afford a dog catcher and all that. And I'm on the Y

[3:12:05] board. I'm you know, if for anything, but where are we going to get 54,000 to

[3:12:09] give it? >> We have a

[3:12:10] » budgeted um

[3:12:12] position in the parks and recreation complex that is not filled right now.

[3:12:17] So, we're going to use that position to fund this with the Y.

[3:12:21] » But then okay, and just like you're saying, if John does decide to turf it,

[3:12:25] this is we can start over with giving them just an additional 20,000 versus we

[3:12:31] don't have to stick with this additional 54,000. If John turfs the fields, you

[3:12:34] said it's for a year. If John decides to turf those fields, and they don't need

[3:12:38] that maintenance for 54,000 a year, I'm saying are we going to have to continue

[3:12:42] to pay that 54,000? >> No. We will We will work Harold and I

[3:12:46] will work on this agreement every year going forward.

[3:12:50] » But just like to now, they got two maintenance guys, uh Jason and Tommy,

[3:12:54] but like people like pay to play sports. Um you know,

[3:12:59] they're going to use that to pay them I mean, do you honestly feel like the 54

[3:13:03] is the number? I mean, not 25. >> I've talked with

[3:13:09] um Brian and Harold about this, and that's

[3:13:12] the number that we came up with.

[3:13:18] » All right. Um

[3:13:21] » [clears throat] >> I can't remember

[3:13:23] » We have to vote on it. >> [laughter]

[3:13:24] » Where we are. Okay. >> We have to vote.

[3:13:25] » All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no.

[3:13:29] And the motion carries. All right. Uh the next item on the agenda the agenda,

[3:13:35] I hope will be the easiest. Um

[3:13:39] Um as we set our agenda this year, uh we inadvertently named September the 7th as

[3:13:46] a meeting date. I don't think anyone wants to come on

[3:13:49] Labor Day and and meet, so I'm requesting that we move that day until

[3:13:55] September the 14th, which is the following Monday.

[3:13:59] » Okay, we have recommendation to move our meeting from Labor Day to September the

[3:14:03] 14th. >> So moved.

[3:14:04] » There's a motion from Mr. Cook's motion. >> Second.

[3:14:07] » Second from Mr. Kirkendall. Um

[3:14:12] Any questions or comments? Now all in favor, please say aye.

[3:14:16] » Aye. >> All opposed, no.

[3:14:18] And we are moved there.

[3:14:23] » Next item on the agenda is for council to consider a work session date. There's

[3:14:28] several of you at at some point over the last year has

[3:14:32] has requested that we do some work sessions. And we we conduct some

[3:14:37] some talks about some things that may

[3:14:41] normally take a long time for us to discuss in a council meeting.

[3:14:44] And so um

[3:14:47] I have August the 17th, 18th, and 20th for those dates.

[3:14:53] » Miss Cogsdill will be gone. >> That's okay.

[3:14:58] » No, no, no, you don't you don't get out of this.

[3:15:01] Uh-uh. >> I promise I I can miss the other one as

[3:15:03] well. >> [laughter]

[3:15:04] » Did he say 17, 18, 19? >> 7, 18, and 20. I think the 19th was a a

[3:15:11] Wednesday, if I remember correctly. >> And

[3:15:15] Oh, August. I'm in the wrong month. Okay.

[3:15:17] » It is August. >> Okay.

[3:15:19] That's Yeah, I was looking at Friday and Saturday. Like, what?

[3:15:24] » And that's just a work session, so we won't take any action. Should you should

[3:15:28] be able to be back in >> You you'll be

[3:15:30] » I can do both of them, though. >> You can watch us on YouTube.

[3:15:33] » Yeah. >> I almost had you, okay.

[3:15:36] » So, I'm you know, I'm looking at discussing today. We're going to have a

[3:15:39] decent CCDC meeting here in just a few days.

[3:15:46] » I'm okay on the 17th or 18th. I can't do the 19th, but I'm good on those.

[3:15:51] Monday or Tuesday? >> 17th, 18th, or 20th.

[3:15:54] » Oh, I'm sorry. I I'm good on any one of those three days.

[3:15:57] » What time we talking about doing that? >> 6:00.

[3:16:02] » Do we do it at 5:00? Is that too early?

[3:16:07] Natalie won't be here. She's usually the one that, you know, still

[3:16:12] especially 17th Oh, yeah. I forgot about Gary. He works, too.

[3:16:19] You're way >> How about the 17th?

[3:16:21] » Is Is 5:00 too early for you, Gary?

[3:16:26] » No, I'll slip out. >> He can do what he wants to do.

[3:16:31] » All right. >> Wait a minute.

[3:16:32] » We'll do it uh Monday >> Let me put it on my calendar.

[3:16:35] » 17th at 5:00 p.m. And I won't keep you for long.

[3:16:43] » On Monday?

[3:16:49] We'll be done by 7:00, right? I got to say something.

[3:16:57] » You want to do it Tuesday?

[3:17:00] » Like I said, we're you know, talking about the CCDC.

[3:17:03] Um I've got some other things that I'll I'll send out that that we want

[3:17:07] we want to talk about and then there's anything that

[3:17:12] either of you would like for us to discuss and get bring you information

[3:17:16] on, just let me know and we'll we'll get that taken care of on Tuesday.

[3:17:20] Um Mayor, that's that's all I have for

[3:17:24] tonight.

[3:17:28] » Okay.

[3:17:32] Y'all really want to do reports and recommendations?

[3:17:35] » Nope. >> Nope.

[3:17:36] » No. Everything's good, Carl.

[3:17:38] » Yeah, we're broke.

[3:17:41] » I want to say that. >> No, my comment was taken out of context

[3:17:45] cuz in my comment never said the city was broke.

[3:17:47] » I don't think you did weren't the one that said it.

[3:17:49] » it. >> You weren't the one that said it.

[3:17:50] » Yeah, you weren't the one that said it. >> Well, I was quoted that says in the in

[3:17:54] the chronicle saying >> Oh, really?

[3:17:56] » No, you were not the one that Well, it was said.

[3:17:59] » Yeah, [laughter] that didn't come from this council meeting.

[3:18:01] » I only got read about it in

[3:18:04] » All right. So, we'll enter uh entertain a motion to

[3:18:09] adjourn. >> So moved.

[3:18:10] » Second. >> Have a motion from Mr. Kirkendall and a

[3:18:12] second from Mr. Smith. All in favor, please

Council Meeting 08-03-26

Transcript