Loading...
July 27, 1998 Council Meeting SPECIAL CALLED JOINT MEETING CITY OF SMYRNA, CITY OF MARIETTA, COBB COUNTY GOVERNMENT JULY 27,1998 A special called mediation hearing was held July 27,1998 at 10:30 a.m. atthe Cobb County Commissioners Meeting Room, Second Floor, 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, Georgia 30090. This meeting was called and conducted pursuant to the Uniform Rules for Dispute Resolution Programs adopted by the Supreme Court of Georgia effective April 15, 1993 as amended, and the Order of the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia on July 23, 1998. ... In attendance was: Cobb County City of Smyrna City of Marietta Chairman Bill Byrne Commissioner Bill Cooper Commissioner Gordon Wysong Commissioner Woody Thompson Mayor A. Max Bacon Councilman Wade Lnenicka Councilman Ron Newcomb Councilman Bill Scoggins Councilman Jim Hawkins Councilman Pete Wood Councilman Jack Cramer Mayor Ansley Meaders Councilman Betty Hunter Councilman John Sinclair Councilman Paul Sabiston Councilman James Dodd Councilman Frank Ayers Councilman Philip Goldstein Also present from the City of Smyrna were Attorneys Scott Cochran and Michael Williams and City Clerk Melinda Dameron. Not present were Councilwoman Charlene Capilouto and City Administrator Howard Smith. Chairnlan Byrne opened the meeting by thanking all the Mayors who participated and took time out of their busy schedules to meet ,:vith him last Tuesday night and stated it was a very productive meeting which would provide a framework to carry over in this morning's meeting. He then introduced Randy Mayer with the firm of Mayer and Beal who was ordered by Judge Ingram to mediate the session today. .... Chairman Byrne stated that as a result ofHB 489, a dispute resolution process began over a year ago between Cobb County and the six cities of Cobb. We came forward with an inter- governmental agreement - we being the Cobb Municipal Association - to the Board of Commissioners that had two issues. Other than that, the agreement as it was presented, which was months of negotiation, was acceptable for the all parties. There were actually four issues addressed in the meeting last Tuesday night and those are open for discussion. The first of those issues was the definition of "substantial change" and there was a unanimous agreement of the five mayors and commission chairman that a substantial change meant a change in land use. Examples of that would be if an mmexation/rezoning came forward in any of our six cities from low density residential to medium density residential, that would not be a land use change. But if it came from residential from commercial, or Office/Institutional or Industrial, that is a l~nd use change and the county would have standing to object to that. The second issue was the agreement itself. Chairnlan Byrne stated that any agreement has to have a mechanism by which you revisit it but not eliminate it and it was a unanimous agreement ofthe six that we address it in that manner and that in the ideal world, July 1 would be the anniversary date of this agreement. Proposed for discussion today is that in June of every year, the six cities and the county revisit the agreement based on the experiences of the past year to see how the agreement worked, where it could be improved or amended, that those proposals be brought to the table for discussion but before it could be adopted and mutually acceptable again there would be an amendment in place. -- The third issue with regards to the issue of annexation/rezoning, and there may be somewhat of a disagreement here in relationship... in the comments I got from Marcia Andruzzi, however, I remembered that the County would have 60 days in w'hich to resolve the differences of the proposed land use changes with the city of record. Number four, and although not a part ofHB489, is that once a year at the end of September, the city and county planning staff and administrators would hold a retreat outside the county to review all land use plans and the proposed changes as a result that year's zonings and the cost of this would prove to be the responsibility of the county. Those were the four issues that we came away with at last Tuesday's meeting in agreement. Chairman Byrne stated those were his notes from that meeting and for simplicity of discussion had taken the liberty of utilizing the Intergovernmental Agreement that was presented by the City Julv 27,1998 meetin2 - continued with these four issues into the agreement. Chairman Byrne said that completed his comments and presented copies ofthe agreement as a form or format on which discussion could proceed. At 11:45 a.m. it was suggested the groups adjourn separately to executive session for further discussion. Councilman Bill Scoggins made a motion the Smyrna officials adjourn to executive session and reconvene at 2:00 p.m. Councilman Wade Lnenicka seconded the motion which was approved by a unanimous vote. When the meeting reconvened, Smyrna officials voted 3-2 to accept the proposal presented by Chairnlan Byrne with Council members Wood and Lnenicka opposed. Councilman Scoggins was absent when the vote was taken. ..... -:.:::- \~-)o_ J~/ RON NEWCOMB, WARD 2 M1&i1. tAMt\l~~E1TY CLERK ~~d~;-- /~...-) 7 ,/ j (/" ,1M41~ ~ '-'~~.9 ' CRAMER, WARD 5 .~/: ~ -- --