January 2007 Public Hearing

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 2

Rosenthal:

The other main primary purpose is the request is a rezone from R-30 to Office-Professional.  As you are aware under your zoning there is both office professional as well as commercial zoning classifications, and office professional is generally considered the less intense of a non-residential use.  If you will, office professional, under your codes, as well as most other zoning codes, allows for things such as architect offices, real estate offices, lawyers offices, and other less intense uses, that while they are commercial, or non residential in nature, they general have a less intense impact on surrounding, transitional uses of residences, such as, as opposed to convenient stores, gas stations, and those sorts of things. The purpose for this rezone request is to allow for my client to open a real estate sales office there at the home, the historic home located there at 1015 Emory Street.  This does require the future land use change, as I told you, from residential to commercial, as well as the concurrent rezone from R-30 to office professional.  As you are aware, there are several mixed uses in the immediate surrounding vicinity of this parcel.  There is office professional, public institutional, commercial, as well as R-30 or low density residential in the immediate vicinity. Office professional is always generally regarded, and in this case we will find, is a good transitional type use from residentially poised properties adjacent to public institutional or commercial uses.  This parcel, and the requested rezone will not adversely affect the surrounding area.  It will be a good transitional  and limited use next to the residence.  This is a beautiful old home.  I was over there just a few minutes ago taking a walk around it.  It is a gorgeous yard.  I don't know the history of the home, but obviously it's been well maintained.  My client has done some good jobs of keeping it in order since they purchased it earlier, well I want to say this year, in early 2006 when they purchased the home.  It's a beautiful home.  They intend on maintaining the historic character and nature of the home.  They intend on maintaining the esthetic value of the home to this community.  They do not intend on changing the esthetic exterior appearance.  There's lots of good natural scapes on the property.  They will maintain those.  I know the Planning Commission Meeting we discussed storm water issues if we had some off street parking.  Well the beauty of this parcel as it sits right now is that it uses pervious parking surface.  Basically in laymens terms meaning it doesn't have an asphalt driveway or parking lot.  It has a crush in run or pea gravel parking lot.  We can continue to maintain that.  If we need to expand the parking in size relative to what City of Oxford zoning development regulations require we certainly would be willing to do that with pervious type parking surfaces that would address any storm water, or any run off problems or mitigation. 

As to the issue of traffic this will have a minimal traffic impact.  I have a copy a traffic study that was done off of state road #81 there at the intersection of Fletcher back in April of this year.  I'll just  be happy to place one of these in the record.  I have several copies if you would like to see them.  Place one of these in the record for Ms. Poole, the City Clerk.  (Attachment A)  But as you can see from this traffic study there is an over an 11,000 adt or average daily trip count there at the intersection of  Fletcher Road and state road #81 or Emory Street.  This is a very busy traveled road as you are all familiar with.  This is your community.  And this particular requested rezone will not adversely  or excessively impact traffic in any way given the busy nature of state road #81.  The requested rezone will not create an isolated district.  Immediately to the south of this parcel, in fact contiguous to this parcel, is Mr. Blair's office, which was rezoned office professional, if I'm not mistaken, sometime  I believe in 2005.  I may be wrong on that.             

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 3

Hoyt Oliver responded:  1979.

Rosenthal
1979.  Ok, well I apologize.  I looked at some particular zoning maps that seemed to show it changing sometime recently, but non the less, you have an office professional use immediately to the south of you there off of Emory Street.  The request of use, as we said,  will maintain the historical integrity of the home and all of its exterior esthetics.  As I looked at the map, you can see that Mr. Blair's office is there just to the south.  The city's city hall building, a non residential use, is also just to the south.  There at the corner, I think we call it the stone building, or the stone store, is a commercially zoned parcel just to the south.  There at the intersection of Clark Street there is another  office professional use of the Nationwide Insurance building.  There is another commercial use there across the corner, the northeast corner of Clark Street and state road #81 or Emory Street.  Basically, simply put, there are multiple non residential uses in the immediate vicinity of this parcel and this particular request for rezone would not create an isolated district, and in fact, is a reasonable request that is in keeping with the surrounding area, particularly given the fact that the rezone request is of a limited commercial or non residential use, in that we are only asking for the office professional zoning and not a more significant or heavier impacted commercial zoning, where we are asking to buy the corner, raise the beautiful home, and put a convenience store on the corner.  What we are asking to do is to allow the beautiful home to continue to live on, but to live on with a different use.  It will be used and maintained in a quality manner as a real estate office in the future.  I personally hail from Walton County in Monroe before I moved my office in with Russell Preston and Gene Benton, my office was located on a street, really very similar to Fletcher Street, a side road in down town, where I took an old home, built in 1929, and restored it, placed an office in it.  It was, in fact, located on a street that had four residences and two offices.  There were six old homes on the street.  Some of them were residential use, some of them were commercial use, but they were zoned only office professional.  Less intense uses.  This is a similar type request that would allow a non residential use to exist and cohabitate, if you will, in the immediate vicinity of other commercial uses, and it would be a nice fit to the area.  Any denial of this request quite frankly would not be, as we position ourselves, would not be, or believed to be the case, would not be reasonably related to the protection of any legitimate state interest of protected health, safety, morality, or general welfare of the public or the community here in Oxford.  We are asking for this land use change from residential to commercial, and we are asking for the concurrent rezone request from R-30 to Office Professional.  As I review the zoning map of the City of Oxford, I just notated, and made some notes here, there are currently two parcels in the city that are zoned office professional. There are three parcels in the city that are zoned commercial.  That's it.  Five parcels, of all the parcels within this city that are available for basically business or commercial uses.  All five of those parcels are literally  within a stones throw of this particular parcel.  This a reasonable request.  It is not an excessive request.  It absolutely, certainly, does not create any isolated spot zoning districts, and it is one that is consistent with the over all general surrounding area and the general traffic patterns located on state road #81 or Emory Street.  We are asking for this rezone.  We stand ready to be willing to comply with any particular developmental standard requests that relate to off street parking or any of those sort of things, and we are certainly willing to be open to any suggestions as to signage location, those sort of things, because we do anticipate placing a nice sign out front that would allow

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 4

Rosenthal:
for the business to be advertised, all in accordance with the sign ordinance of the City of Oxford.  And with that, I would be happy answer any questions that this council may have in reserving any time for rebuttal. 

Oliver:  One question.  Mr. Rosenthal, when the Halls purchased that property at 1015 Emory Street, was it with the knowledge that it was zoned residential?

Rosenthal:  It is my understanding that this zoning map was available to anyone from the general public in February of 2006 when they purchased it.

Oliver:  I'm asking about to your knowledge, were they aware that it was zoned residential when they purchased it?

Rosenthal:  Well, I feel certain that they were, since that was public record Mr. Oliver.

Smith:  Mr. Rosenthal, you said the property is owned by Mr. Hall?

Rosenthal:  That is correct.  It is owned by Eddie Hall.

Smith:  Ok, all right.  Ms. Hall has no ownership?

Rosenthal:  She has no ownership in the real property.

Smith:  Hoyt just asked about the intent, once this property was purchased back in the winter, and was the intent of the purchase there for it to be single family or was the intent to be purchased as a single family and possibly put a business in there at some point and time? Can you share that, or is Ms. Hall here that could tell us that?

Rosenthal:  Well, I mean, I think the important thing to recognize, and I certainly understand your concern Council member Smith, that there is a bit of a history with this parcel, and that  the manner and method in which intents, in which I have communicated, may not have been done perfectly, and the manner and method in which the parcel was used in the past, may not have been approached in the most appropriate methods.  But the reality remains today, that my client, both Mr. Hall, as the owner of the property, as well as All Star Homes & Land, the applicant, and the intended user of the property, has filed this rezone request, requesting that it be rezoned to office professional to allow it to move forward in the future to be used as a real estate sales office.  The structure will not change.  There is no intention of modifying it or anything thing like that.  Was there an intent in the past of it being either a single family residence or a business.  Quite frankly, yes, there was intent of both because the family history of the Halls changed.  It was originally purchased with the intent of it being used for some of the elderly family members with an eye towards it being an office at some point.  Was everything done perfectly in the past?  It absolutely was not,  but I submit to this council respectfully, that the issue before us today is whether or not this is an appropriate rezone now we submit to you that it is a very reasonable and appropriate rezone, and moving forward, we want to

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 5

Rosenthal:
be good neighbors, and do what we are suppose to do, and that is why we are asking for this rezone  so that we can have a real estate sales office there, and moving forward, while the past may not have been perfect, I submit to you, that my client is ready to move forward, and do the right thing, and be a good neighbor, as a business owner here in the City of Oxford.

Smith:  And another question.  Does Mr. Hall own All Star Realty?

Rosenthal:  No.  All Star Homes & Land is owned by Ms. Hall.  His wife.  Although, just for further clarification, just for your knowledge, basically, it is a family owned business. Ms. Hall owns the business, but Mr. Hall, their son, and Ms. Hall all have officer roles or control capacity, if you will of some form or fashion,  of the business, but Ms. Hall is the president and owner of the business.

Roseberry:  Has the owner of this property operated a real estate office there prior to today's date?

Rosenthal:  Well, there was a matter before Judge Hathorn that addressed violations of the customary home occupation ordinances of the City of Oxford.  We dealt with those in a consent order.  And since that day, business operations have not occurred or conducted at 1015 Emory Street to the best of  my knowledge.

Roseberry:  Has your client advertised that location as a real estate office?

Rosenthal:  I am aware of the concerns about the advertisements, and I do understand that there advertisements out there that shows 1015 Emory Street as a location of her business.  I believe that advertising has been conducted. Yes.  I still believe, respectfully, though that that is not relevant to the real question of whether or not this is a reasonable request and whether not it should be a rezone that is granted by this council, and whether or not a failure to do so would deprive my client of constitutionally protected rights.

Oliver:  I don't know whether you have received them or not Mr. Rosenthal, but from the meeting of the Oxford Planning Commission on December 19th, the minutes of which the Council received, and I believe you were present at that meeting,

Rosenthal:  I was.

Oliver:   the Planning Commission went through the eighteen criteria, which our zoning ordinance specifies they must look at in considering any land use and city map changes.  The Planning Commission and Council also are familiar with the history of that property which was taken out of commercial in the year 1979 and made residential.  That was the year in which Oxford's commercial district shrank to its present, very limited, size.  So those minutes of the 1979 meetings show that the line was drawn south of 1015 Emory Street.  That it was made residential, changed from commercial, and that situation has not changed in any land use plan since 1979.  So, the Planning Commission report found that it did not conform to the Oxford Land Use Plan, and that for most of the eighteen criteria, this requested zoning change would not adversely affect the neighborhood.

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 6

Oliver:
The Planning Commission reports that it would not constitution the grant of a special privilege as contrasted to the general welfare, But the Planning Commission reports that it is contrary to community sentiments and that this would not be a benefit to the City of Oxford.  The minutes show that.  And, the question of whether it would adversely affect adjacent property values, is open for question.  They could not determine.  And, one important thing that the criteria mentioned, is it possible to find an adequate site for the proposed use?  It is certainly possible.  There are, in the county, inumerable sites available for real estate offices.  And, at the time this was purchased, 1015 Emory Street, one of our commercial buildings was available and on the market for sale.  Could very well have been bought at that time.  So, that was the judgement of the Planning Commission.  Primarily the non conformity to the land use plan of Oxford, that land use plan has been in effect since 1979.  And if there are questions that the Planning Commission need to follow up on, I believe that both the chairman and the secretary of the Planning Commission are here and can address those.

Rosenthal:  I did have the pleasure of being at that Planning Commission meeting and I do have a copy of the minutes.  And, I do appreciate your bringing it up, and I do appreciate the hard work that the Planning Commission went into analyzing, quite frankly, most Planning Commissions that  I go before don't spend the great time and detail and effort in addressing the various standards that are outlined in your code, and just for the Council's benefit, and not for a history lesson perse, but just so you can understand where this comes from, because I address those eighteen questions on a regular basis.  They stem from a Dekalb County case called Holcombe Bridge Road vs. Guhl.  There are actually sixteen standards that us zoning lawyers generally understand as the Guhl factors.  And there are generally sixteen of them.  Ya'lls kind of got modified by the North East Georgia RDC and turned into eighteen questions, but non the less, I do appreciate the analysis that the Planning Commission implemented while going over those, and I have seen those and reviewed those, and certainly I agree with several, but I disagree with some.  And I do understand  the fact that  for twenty seven years since this property was taken out, as you say, from commercial that it remains residential, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a timing issue with that particular point.  #1. What is relevant is not when my client purchased this property in February of last year, or whether or not there was available parcels in the county or elsewhere.  What is relevant is whether or not this is a reasonable request and a reasonable application as submitted on October 30th, 2006.  Additionally, as I noted, and I think you agree, that there only five parcels in this city that allow for non residential uses other than the public institutional uses at the college and the schools and the city hall and that sort of thing.  There are two office professional zoned parcels, and three commercial parcels.  And, so quite frankly, I think it's wise in the face of reason that there are not enough commercially or non residentially zoned parcels within the City of Oxford that will allow for my client to have a business in this town.  Additionally, while, I don't want to parse into the specific details and get into arguing those eighteen standards, cause candidly, that is something the Planning Commission spent a good bit of time on, and did.  I will just point, your honor, to item 14 where  I remember the chair and the secretary discussing in great length the concept of the CBD (central business district). And the frank problem that I have with that, is the fact that no where in the City of Oxford Code have I been able to find, after review with Ms. Poole, and discussions with staff, that this Council and the city had a CBD defined. And, so quite frankly, analysis of this parcel and

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 7

Rosenthal:
incorporating into that analysis discussion about whether or not it is within the city CBD, when in fact, there is no official delineated CBD that I could find on the record of the City of Oxford causes some problem.  Regardless, I think the important thing to recognize is, is that while twenty nine years ago it was determined that this should be the line of demarcation, or twenty seven years ago, excuse me, the reality remains true, that the traffic count on Hwy 81, Emory Street was eleven thousand cars a day.  Eleven thousand adt's in 1979, and that things have changed.  And, while change can be a bad thing, change can also be a good thing.  The one thing that remains confident is the change that all that always happens.  And, that it may have been appropriate twenty seven years ago to take this parcel out of a commercial zoned classification, it non the less, that the request today remains an appropriate and a reasonable request that given the surrounding uses, given the surrounding environment, and given the desire to put a less intense use in this traditional commercial, but in fact a reduced office professional use, where we are willing to condition the fact that the exterior esthetics will not change, that the ground scapes will not change, that it will remain and will have a lot of good green space, that in fact, that is a reasonable request, and it is a request that should be honored by this Council.

Murdy:  The reason for wanting to settle in Oxford, in order to do business, actually the clientele, on a business like that, would not just even be county wide, but would include Walton County and other counties nearby, as well as Newton County.  By, in your statement, was almost as if this an opportunity to bring something to Oxford that it doesn't have.  But, can you give us any better reasons why the Halls wanted to live in Oxford?  In other words, it's not something, it's like saying, well we opened an ice cream store, because we know the people in Oxford love ice cream, and they buy more than anybody else.  Whereas, you advertised your business widely, showing pictures of houses and so forth, all over the county. 

Rosenthal:  I mean, why wouldn't you.  I mean the home is beautiful.  I would want to work in the home, and it's a great small quaint town.  I have a practice, not that we are going to keep comparing it to what I do, but I'm in the service industry, just like Ms. Hall's practice is.  And I have a practice that is based in Monroe Georgia.  A little bit bigger than Oxford, but non the less a small town.  I got out of Atlanta, and I wanted to get out.  And so I found a small town.  I got a small house, very similar to hers as a matter of fact, off of a side street in downtown Monroe, and opened up an office.  Just because my office is based in Monroe I really literally represent clients all over the State of Georgia.  And so the same is somewhat true for the service industry, such as the real estate sales business.  And specifically to Ms. Hall's business the reality is true, cause I know there is a lot of concern about a lot of traffic.  There will not be a lot of heavy traffic to this property.  She primary represents new home builders.  New home builders, who I generally represent the developers first getting the property rezoned and putting in the 100 lots for the sub-division, or what ever, and then all of a sudden the builders come in and buy the lots and build the homes.  The majority of her sales agents generally will be at this particular site, the home office if you will, one day a week.  They will work in the sales trailers.  Many of you in home shopping, and growing Newton County, or even in Butts County on further south, and you go and find a new neighborhood and you want to move into, you pull into the neighborhood, and there right as you get into the door are balloons, and free coffee, and free donuts, and every other sort of thing they do to con you in the door, or get you to come in

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 8

Rosenthal:
the door, excuse me, and here you are, and you've got a sales trailer, and that's where the agents will stay most of the time.

Murdy:  What do you mean by a sales trailer?

Rosenthal:  Not here on the property, but at each of these new neighborhoods that are building out, there will be an assigned agent who will be there, off site, not at 1015 Emory Street forty hours a week, or thirty five or so.  And then one day a week, they will come into the home office if you will, 1015 Emory Street, they'll do the office things that  they have to do, caravans, and checking in and updating mls and those sort of things.  So full time there is expected to be about two to three people there on site during the week, Ms. Hall, her son, and a receptionist.  That's who's expected to be on site full time roughly thirty five to forty hours a week.  Then, throughout the week the agents that have remote sites, that work at these sales trailers, will be coming in one day a week and doing the various things that they have to do and their responsibilities as an associate broker, and an associate sales agent, but the majority of their work takes place in these new neighborhoods that are in Newton County, Butts County, Morgan County and the like, as they're  building out these new neighborhoods and they  actually do most of their work in these sales trailers.

Windham:  As you know, I am a real estate person. What you just said seems to contradict for me the significance of having an office here with 11,000 cars on the road, because, a very low percentage, and I have been reading the ads of the businesses in Oxford, and both of your sales people are out there in those sales trailers picking up their mls in the trailers. They can do all of that work from the trailers. They do not have to be in that office one day a week, one day a month.

Rosenthal:  I don't disagree that they don't have to be there, but

Windham:  But you made it sound as if a significant thing is that there's 11,000 cars down that road a day, and it's going to make or break that business, whether they can get that going or not.  And that's just inappropriate. 

Rosenthal:  I'm not trying to imply that it makes or breaks the business.  What I'm trying to imply  or make sure that our position is, is that because there is such a heavy traffic count on the road, that an office professional use is not an unreasonable request.  One of the, not only the Guhl criteria, but also, one of your eighteen standards addresses traffic issues.  And when there is an 11,000 car adt on the road already, one little ole real estate office isn't going to significantly impact that traffic pattern or change it.  I do think that there is a lot of value in having this business, or the business, right here on the road.  It's a beautiful home site.  She'll put a nice signage out there, and she'll get some, what we call foot traffic.  She'll get some, you know, some sales or co-calls just off of the signage itself.  I was just trying to help the Council understand for business models, in her business models, the majority of the work takes place off-site, although there will be meetings on site.  And there will be walk-ins, and there will be people meeting in there, the majority of her business takes place at these sales trailers.

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 9

Windham:  So by definition, it really doesn't matter where her office is?

Rosenthal:  Sure, she could work out of her car.

Windham:  There you go.

Rosenthal:  But I still don't think that's

Windham:  And the 11,000 cars do not go down Fletcher Street.

Rosenthal:  No they don't.  This traffic count was on State Road #81.

Murdy:  From what you said before, I would assume that you would want to put a comment sign so people going along 81would see that there is a real estate office there.

Rosenthal:  Yes, absolutely.  And our desire and intent would be, and I haven't specifically looked at your sign ordinances, but just generally, our desire and intent would be to install some signage somewhat similar to what I saw on Mr. Blairs office just south of this property.  A very nice professionally constructed sign, that's built in accordance with your sign ordinance, that's built in accordance with all set backs and the like, that will allow for her business to have visibility off  of  state road #81, for her to garner some value off of this traffic count.

Roseberry:  You made the statement that your client would maintain the property and obey the ordinances, care for the property and not change it in appearance and etc.,

Rosenthal:  That is correct.

Roseberry:  My question to you is, do you feel like that your clients’ conduct, since buying that property, supports your statement?

Rosenthal:  I did not see the property when it was purchased.  From my review of it earlier today,  it appears to be maintained quite well, and appears to still maintain and retain it's historical significance.

Roseberry:  But the point I am making attorney, is that when they purchased the property it was residential.  They used it as a real estate office in violation of our ordinances.  Now, you are saying  they want to obey the ordinances.  They haven't proved to us that they will obey the ordinances.

Rosenthal:  Councilmember Roseberry, I respect your concerns, but I don't know if I can  say it any more clearly than I did before.  Was everything done right before.  No it wasn't.  That was a matter that was addressed in front of Judge Hathorn, and quite frankly, and respectfully, I do not believe it is a matter that is relevant today, because we are here before you today, telling you was everything done exactly right?  No.  But this is non the less an appropriate request? Yes.  And are we ready to proceed forward and work towards becoming good neighbors, for this city?  And the answer

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 10

Rosenthal:
is yes we are.  I have seen nothing to indicate that the esthetics, or the historical significance of this home has been jeopardized, or has been  impugned in any way since my client purchased the property in February of 2006.

Roseberry: My point is that  you're asking us to believe  your client will obey the ordinances.  Now, after appearing before Judge Hathorn, did they continue to operate a real estate office?

Rosenthal:  As I stated previously, to the best of my knowledge, since we dealt with this matter  in front of Judge Hathorn in the Municipal Court of the City of Oxford, there has been no business conducted at 1015 Emory Street. 

Citizens

David Eady:  I actually want to speak on behalf of the Planning Commission, as the Secretary reporting our deliberations and our final reporting to the Mayor and Council, and help the community understand our role as Planning Commission is to provide advice to the City Council on  what their action should be in this matter.  And we do have  particular criteria as was referenced.  We also have other instruments, if you will, other policy documents, and planning documents that we are required to consider, including the comprehensive plan for Oxford.  This includes our current land use map and our future land use map. And let me say that any one of the eighteen criteria, or sixteen of the consolidated GUHL factors can justify or substantiate a recommendation and decision by the Mayor and Council to deny or approve a request.  And the very first criterion is whether or not the proposed change is in conformance with our land use map.  And, we went through great pains about ten years ago, to update our zoning ordinances in the city and to then redraw the districts in the city according to our newly defined categories.  And then we went through another lengthy planning process of updating our comprehensive plan.  The zoning ordinances were amended in 96.  We updated the map and the comprehensive plan in the 1998 time frame.  I'm not worried about these precise dates, just giving you a sense of timing.  So about ten years ago, we set into place what our policies are going to be for growth and development in the City of Oxford.  And, that was to determine that the end of our commercial uses would be at the office professional building, if you will, where Tony Blair currently operates his attorney’s office.  That was the house that had been used by Mr. Townsend as a dentist office, and so we said well ok, that's kind of the demarcation.  That is the transition parcel from our commercial activity to our residential areas.  And, that was made in consultation with the owner at the time of that property, that owned the, where Mr. Blair’s office is.  There was quite a bit of public discussion about that.  And so the future planning was set forth in those documents. That, that was the point at which our commercial activity stopped.  We have more recently gone through a couple of different planning exercises including one where the city invested a fair amount of dollars in working with a consultant from Athens and looking at our community facility needs.  And then we invested in work of the University of Georgia Metropolitan Design Studio and their students on a master plan for the community that involved a focal point on our town center.  And that is a significant issue of consensus among the community that we want to delineate a town center and identify here's sort of the point of business in town, and then here's all the residential and the college, the public institutional services, and

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 11

Eady:
occupations that are available to people living in the town. But we wanted that to be a very deliberate process.  So over the course of the last year and a half, we have been going through a lot of discussions about what that is supposed to look like.  And, consistently the property that Tony Blair's office is currently operated on is the end point for commercial activity as an office professional building.  And then to the south, we had said that this building, right here, for a length of time being, marks the other end.  Bookends, this is where our development is going to be from a commercial stand point.  Erik Oliver and I have been working quite intensely over the last several months in developing a number of planning options for the town on how we develop that town center to give us additional options to the one that was presented by the University of Georgia's Design Studio.  We shared that with the Mayor and Council, with the Planning Commission.  We've shared it with a joint planning group at the college.  I'm just saying there is a consistent set of principles at work and a consistent vision.  And none of it calls for further encroachment of commercial activity into our residential area.  In fact, there was some discussion about the city moving some of its buildings west towards Asbury Street, and everyone opposed that. They felt like we needed to contain even our public institutional, our city building, and keep it in a concentrated area.  So, we don't want to keep sprawling out our commercial activity.  We want to keep it compact, in a very appropriately scaled town center. And so that is what the decision of recommendation of the Planning Commission has made to you reflects that overwhelming sentiment, but that is in fact documented in policy of the city in our comprehensive plan as it stands today, and will be in the recommended master plan that Erik and I are preparing for you to adopt on what our town center should look like.  So I think that moving in the direction of granting this request is contrary to this more recent planning, but also contrary to where we have come about two hundred years of thinking on it. 

Windham:  In all that planning, with various professional groups that came in and did work in the City of Oxford, did any of those groups recommend an expansion of this business, so called business
area of the town center?  Did they recommend that we go further north with commercial or go further west with commercial?  Did any of them recommend it?

Eady:  No, in fact, they all recommended concentrating our business activities where we have it existing making it even more focused on our defined center of town which is really from this street, George Street to Clark Street with some spillage over into where  rock store and the existing office professional building where Mr. Blair operates.

Erik Oliver:  I was just saying that I was concerned  that we are not giving the public enough time to talk.

Curtis Jackson:  I was just curious as to how large a company this is?  That is, how many agents, and how many employees does the company have?

Rosenthal:  As I stated we anticipate full time on site, there being three full time employees.  Ms. Hall, her son, and a receptionist.  And then on top of that, she has, ball park, in the range of twelve to fifteen associates or sales associates.  And they will not be there on a permanent regular basis.  They will be checking in on a regular basis from time to time whenever they have what is called

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 12

Rosenthal:
office duty or whenever they have caravan calls or office meetings and the like.  So full time three.

Sherry Jackson:  Where are ya'll conducting business now if your'e not doing it at that location?

Rosenthal:  Ms. Hall is conducting business in these sales trailers and she is operating out of her house.

Hoyt Oliver:  Just for curiosity, since there has been a car everyday that I am aware of at 1015 Emory Street, is that Mr. Tim Hall's vehicle or is it the receptionist’s?

Rosenthal:  I'm not sure whose vehicle it is Mr. Oliver.

Oliver:  But, you’re saying there is no business being conducted in there since the hearing before Judge Hathorn?

Rosenthal:  As I stated earlier, I'll answer it the same way I answered it in court, no.

Sherry Jackson:  So that's not her home?

Oliver:  No, it never has been.

Eva Sitton:  I would just like to express a concern.  This is not just an Emory Street lot.  It fronts on Fletcher and also on Asbury.  So if that's rezoned, it takes the zoning off of Emory.  It extends beyond Emory.

Lee Payne:  Yes, Mayor Murdy, there are a number of citizens here, and residents of the area who,  ask them of a show of hands, how many of them live or own property in this neighborhood and are  in favor or opposed to this zoning.

Murdy:  We had a petition to go around, and that petition was signed by a great many people who live in Oxford.  I don't want to get into

Payne:  I am aware.  I have signed that petition.  You are in fact aware of the petition that was signed by a substantial number of people opposed?

Huanne Burnett:  If there agreements to maintaining the land, and what it's going to be like, and it will be pretty in the neighborhood,  what kind of covenants will this owner be under when they decide to sell that property to somebody else?

Rosenthal:  Mayor, I think the question she's asked relates to the desire, that the status quo be maintained, not necessarily to the use, but in the exterior and the esthetics.  And as I stated before,  we have no plans on expanding the business in anyway as far as the physical structure of the building.  We are more than willing to accept a condition of zoning.  That it be conditioned upon no

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 13

Rosenthal:
major exterior esthetic changes to the existing building.  I do anticipate, that based on the criteria within your code, that the parking may have to be expanded somewhat.  But that would continue to be expanded in a manner that is conducive to the overall esthetic nature with the pea gravel basically, which really obviates almost all of your storm water needs.  I think the key is this.  If we are going to keep this and maintain it, there's a lot of green space out there.  There are no plans to build any other buildings.  We'll not be fronting on Fletcher and fronting on Asbury and building all around the piece.  This is a very nice open lot, as you all know.  A little torn up right now because the city is back there with their toys digging holes in the ground.  But it is a very nice, beautiful lot that we will maintain open green nature of this lot.  There will be an entrance off of Fletcher and that's it.  Now, as I understand it, there is what I would call a service entrance off of Asbury.  There is a gate there, maybe where a truck comes in, you know, if they need to get in.  We wouldn't want to close that off.  But it will not be used as primary entrance in anyway.  The only primary entrance would remain there off of Fletcher. 

Murdy:  Huanne, does that answer your question?

Huanne:  No sir, not at all.  I understand, while this owner owns that property.  What I am concerned with is what kind of stipulations now can the city legally make, because anybody in real estate is gonna sell any property for a profit.  So this real estate business may get sold.  Because somebody may want to buy it.  It's not the business, but the property.  If something else is done there when it is rezoned, we don't know what kind of guarantee those people will make about how they will keep it.

Murdy:  I think that's a major concern, is that once you rezone a piece of property, then the zone criteria go with it.

Rosenthal:  And Mayor, to address that issue, and I know that your city attorney will properly advise on this, cause I represent the City of Walnut Grove, as well as the City of Monroe, and the City of Good Hope.  And we address these issues on frequent occasions.  First off, we are willing to condition this rezone, that it will operate only as a real estate sales office.  Meaning, that the use will, if you look in your office profession zoning classification right now, there is a list of uses that are allowed under OP.  We are willing to condition this rezoned, that it be used solely as a real estate sales office.  That will narrow that list to one.  And without further approval of this Council, no other operations can take place on that site.  Now, the reality remains, that once this property is rezoned, it will be office professional.  When she sells, there is not a manner or method that this Council can craft, a motion this Council can craft, that would make it revert back to residential.  That issue has been addressed.  I have litigated it before, and it would be frankly illegal for this Council to do that.  This Council can't buy basically future Council.  But the point is, we would limit to a real estate office only so that any future change, her concern about what happens next, sure, they would have the right to sell it.  It would be subject to change and approval by this Council because the only allowed or permitted use would be that of the operation of a real estate sales office that is basically going to operate normal business hours during the daylight hours, and I couldn't imagine, except for nights like this when it gets dark early, never at night.

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 14

Windham:  As we move forward, if we were to allow it on a conditional use, as we move forward to another Council, another time, whatever, or even if they decided for another use, we would be in a very very weak position. 

Rosenthal:  That means, quite frankly, you know the concern and the question was about what happens in the future.   We have offered a condition that is very reasonable, that narrows the scope of our requested rezone.

Windham:  But that narrowed scope would put us in a very weakened position in the future for denying another use that falls within office professional.

Rosenthal:  Well, I can't advise you...

Windham:  I'm not an attorney, but I'm sure it does.

Rosenthal:  Well, I certainly understand your concern Councilman.

Rebecca Hunter:  When you set a precedence, there is no law.  You people can not make law.  The Council can't make a law.  The law is there.  They set a precedence.  You can not say that it can not be used anyway they want to from their own.  You understand?  Legally.

Derk Whitsitt:  I saw who bought this property just residential, and moved in immediately with office equipment and everything.  She knew from the get go she was going to make a real estate office out of that.  And since they've gone to court, and cited her, they've done business everyday just like they wanted to do business.  The phone lines are still hooked up, the power.  The truck comes at 8:00 o'clock and leaves at 5:00.  If they aren't doing business there, I don't know what they are doing.

Erik Oliver:  I just want to point something out.  As former chairman of the Tree Board, that, we often kind of shake our heads, and wonder what our original town planner was thinking when he made these right of ways so wide.  I want to remind those that the Fletcher Street right of way is 165' feet wide.  The same width as Wesley Street.  The only time I met Ms. Hall is when I knocked on her door to inform her that we were about to plant oaks along that street, and I just wanted to be neighborly and say we're going to be planting these on the right of way, are you aware of where the right of way comes to.  She says, oh yes, it comes within two feet of my home.  Asbury Street, the other side is 139' wide.  It comes up to that gate.  The truth of that property is that it is very small.  Certainly, this Council would not give permission for inumerable number of cars to  park on that right of way.  That leaves the only space for you to park your cars directly in front of that house and directly behind that house. There is no other space.  The lot is not designed to support any use except for residential.

Curtis Jackson:  Along with what he is saying, if they have that many employees and agents you're looking at a parking lot for twenty cars.  Their going to have sales meetings at least once a week and everyone's going to be in that office, and their going to have to have large allotted.

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 15

Norbert Thompson:  I just wondered, who is the owner of the property?  According to the ordinances that were written, I believe when Virgil and I served on that committee, that the resident who owned the property has the right, perhaps under the discretion of the Council, to use that property for a certain specified purpose.  As I understand it here, we don't even have the resident, who is Tim Hall, petitioning for this change.  Is that correct?

Rosenthal:  I represent both Eddie Hall, the owner of the property, as well as the applicant, All Star Homes and Land.  Not to get into the mundane of legalities, but I do this more often than I care to.  Maybe eight  nights a month, I am stuck before honorable folks such as yourself talking like this.  And is both the right and the obligation of the owner to bring the request, as well as an applicant or intended user.  The normal, or plan bill of case I would be bringing, the owner would own the 100 acre farm, and the applicant would be the developer who wants to build out the 100 lots and put the sub- division in.  To speak to his issue, the appropriate person and entity has filed this application.  The owner of the property, Mr. Eddie Hall as well as the applicant, the intended user, All Star Homes and Land.

Oliver:  I'd like to ask a clarification from Frank Davis and David Eady who know the ordinances more thoroughly than I do.  Is it not the case that in office professional, the set backs, the amount of the lot covered by the principal building and so on, is far more lenient than residential?  I think that in office professional you can come up immediately to the lot line. I believe it provides for that.  I'd have to check the relevant sections.

David Eady:  You are correct that the set backs are different for office professional.

Oliver:  The set backs are different.  The amount of lot that can be covered in office professional is much greater than in residential.  So, the point I'm trying to make without being able to quote the exact figures is that property zoned office professional only has to have a 10' set back.  It has to have a 35' set back in residential.  From other streets it can be 10'.  It has to be at the minimum of 15 in residential.  And it can have 50' coverage of the lot.  Residential can have 25' coverage.  So, the point I'm trying to make is that this would at least double the amount of the lot that can be covered with buildings.  And there is nothing in our ordinances that I am aware with that would prevent someone taking down an existing building on office professional and putting up a much much larger building that would cover much more of the land area.  That goes along with the zoning.

Sherry Jackson:  Also, according to the ordinance, they should have to have a certain amount of parking per employee per thing, and they will have to expand their parking if that, not that the amount that comes to the office of the number of employees that are employed by that business.  Is that not correct?

Oliver:  It is specified how much you have to have.

Roseberry:  We just went through this at Allen Memorial.  Parking by law, you are required to a certain percentage must be reserved for handicap. 

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 16

LaTrelle Oliver:  This is a small question, but I heard something about the owner’s constitutional protection.  I wonder, someone explain to me, what, and I mean this quite genially, what is the constitutional right of a municipality of citizenry to determine where its boundaries are.  Do we have constitutional protection?

David Strickland:  Well I think the principal, Mr. Mayor and Councilors, I think the principal concern in relations to these matters is, and what's traditionally, and what's typically looked at is, rezoning and other land use hearings such as this are the public and the residents’ individual rights to maintain their property and to have the best use of their property.  Those are guaranteed under both Federal and State constitutions.  And I would just add that anytime you have a, and I'm not insinuating, I don't know what Mr. Rosenthal, or what his clients intend to do, but if you want to leave open the possibility of pursuing a matter of course, if you're not satisfied with the outcome, it's a necessary condition proceeding that you make the Council aware that you're claiming that it would be an unconstitutional result for the property not to, for the rezoning not to be allowed.  Anytime you see an attorney come for rezoning, they're going to include that language.  I'm not aware of any constitutional rights that municipalities have.  There are certain procedures that you need to go through, but I'm not aware of protection.

David Eady:  Perhaps Mr. Strickland could just speak to constitutional basis for zoning as action by the City Council in ensuring the public welfare as extension of the police powers of the state.

Strickland:  That's the authority for any municipality  or county, having zoning, is that  the government is allowed policing power provisions to provide for reasonable uses of individual property.  But once again, you typically talk about individuals’ protection under constitutions, not the government itself protection under the constitution.  Cause, I think, the founders would indicate that the reason for constitution was to protect individuals from governmental power not the government themselves.

Vivian Harris:  I do not understand the attorney, and I would like for him to put it in laymen’s terminology that any person can come to any city and make you change your ordinance to met their needs.  Is that what I'm hearing you saying?

Windham:  No. That's not what we are saying.

Barry Whitsitt:  Now, I'm just wondering what the procedure is.  Are you people going to vote on this this evening, or what?

Murdy:  In our regular meeting.

David Eady:  Just to comment on Ms. Harris' question or comment.  That's why we have these procedures.  We have due process for the applicant and procedures that we have in our ordinances that would ensure that the right procedures are followed and the right criteria are taken into consideration.  The decision they make, as long as the legality of our ordinances are upheld and the appropriateness of our procedures are maintained, the integrity of our procedures are maintained,

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 17

David Eady:
there's no reason why they can't feel confident making the decision that's been recommended by the Planning Commission which is to, based on the criteria that we are provided to assess this request. 
Claude Sitton:  I hate to disagree, if that's what I'm doing with these lawyers.  But I believe, many years ago, that the United States Supreme Court held corporations to be individuals in title.  But this is a municipal corporation, if I'm wrong.  Might be worth looking into.  Perhaps the Supreme Court has overruled that previous decision.

Charles Green:  Since we talk about our fore fathers as they set up for the elements today, People are not elements.  I hear the people here saying now, what they want and what they don't want.  Do the people want this in their neighborhood?

Murdy:  What you're saying is that don't we have, as a collective group of people in the Town of Oxford, have the right to determine whether something gets rezoned or not.  And I would say, that we should have the right to that, if it's done properly and not unreasonably.

Martha Forney:  We bought our house in 1977 and moved in in 1978.  The reason we chose Oxford was because of the community aspect of it.  We did not like the commercial aspect of it, and I still don't like the commercial aspect of it.  I want to make it very clear that I do not want Oxford to get any larger as far as commercial zoning.  I want it to stay residential.

Frank Davis:  I want to speak as an individual since I am no longer chairman, or a member of the Planning Commission.  I'd like to remind Mr. Rosenthal that he told us there are only five commercial, office, institutional areas in our community.  There is a reason for that.  The citizens of Oxford don't want any more.  That's the reason we tried to maintain what we have.

Huanne Burnett:  I was impressed when this attorney said he found Oxford to be a beautiful and quaint community.  That's what the residents feel about Oxford and that's why we want to be so careful that we can keep it.  You left Atlanta because you didn't like all that looking for a, and I think the lady beside you left the city looking for this type of community.  And some of us prefer that.

Virgil Eady:  In light of some of these comments Mr. Mayor, I believe it would be appropriate to ask  if those citizens, here  present, who are opposed to this, be allowed to stand and make a silent testimony.

Murdy:  I don't think that's necessary, but.  We're going to be voting on it very quickly.

Eady:  I'm saying that that would make the citizens give a silent testimony to the Council members who are going to be voting on it.

The majority of residents present at the meeting stood at this time.

LaTrelle Oliver:  I think that everybody in this room has lived long enough, everybody, including

PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 8, 2007
PAGE 18

LaTrelle:
the baby back here, understands that change does happen.  That is a fact of life.  Change.  And we make decisions based on necessity or what we are comfortable with.  Change happens.  The message here is that we are not comfortable with this change.  I would like to offer a new word for our discussion as our process of changing proceeds in the future, because it is going to.  We all know that.  We don't need to be naive.  But here's an English teacher word for it-interface.  Where do the interfaces happen in our community?  How do we want to shape those interfaces?  Where do we want to place them?  Another great gift of this place, besides the people who’ve made its history, is the fact that it has been predominantly residential.  That is one of our gifts.  That does not mean, that regardless of what the charter says in its history, that there will never be some change in that. But, predominantly we want there to be residential.  That is how we are identified, as a residential area with an academic institution.  Business will happen.  They just have.  People had to get their horses shoed for heaven’s sake in the past.  They have happened, and they have come and gone.  But we need to decide carefully on the interfaces of residential, institutional, and all manner of business.  The other thing is- gateway.  Gateway, opening.  The gateway to our history, to our story, is right there at Fletcher, Emory, Asbury.  That's where our icon is.  Old Church is down the vista.  That's how we know who we are.  Probably, we're not all conscious of it, but you think about it.  That is the gateway to our story.  Perhaps even more so than the college, because more of us live out here than interact with the college.  So it's a very precious place for us, and we may not even be aware of it.