Board of Mayor & Commissioners

MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE PIPERTON BOARD OF MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS September 20, 2022, 6:00 P.M. The Piperton Board of Mayor and Commissioners met in regular session on September 20, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, with Board members: Mayor Henry Coats, Vice-Mayor Mike Binkley Commissioner Preston Trotter, Commissioner Hugh Davis, and Commissioner David Crislip present. City Manager Steve Steinbach, Police Chief Phil Hendricks, Fire Chief Reed Bullock, Public Works Director Richard Mills, Building Official Elizabeth Reed, City Planner Brett Morgan, City Engineer Harvey Matheny, City Attorney Gerald Lawson and City Recorder Beverly Holloway were present. William Meacham, Elizabeth McCommon, Carolyn Rhea (Fayette Falcon), Letha Granberry, Vicki Hancock, Josh Burnette, Jim and Mimi Ragon, Bret Morris, Dawn Mundy, David Bartlett, Beau Browning, Michael Rogers, Gary Thompson (Boyle Inv.), Dan Blackman, Scott Malone, Walter Priddy, Amanda Curtin, Charles Russell, Mike Nicholson, Beth Gallagher, Jeff Maddock, Armondi Hojdini, Will Hays, Scott McDaniel, Kay Long, Todd Flynn, Officer Craig and et al were present in the audience. Finance Director Maria George was absent. Agenda item 1. Call to order, establish quorum Action taken: Mayor Henry Coats called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and established that a quorum was present. Agenda item 2. Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag Action taken: Fire Chief Reed Bullock led in the opening Prayer and Commissioner David Crislip led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. Agenda item 3. Any changes to Agenda; Motion to adopt Agenda Action taken: There was a change to the Agenda with Mr. Steinbach requesting the movement of item 8 and 9 to become the new item 6 and 7 after department reports, Commissioner Preston Trotter moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Crislip. The Motion received all affirmative votes. Agenda item 4. Any changes to the Minutes of the Regular Session of August 16, 2022: Motion to adopt the Minutes of the Regular Session of August 16, 2022 Action taken: There were no changes to the Minutes of the Regular Session of August 16, 2022, Vice-Mayor Mike Binkley moved to approve the Minutes of the Regular Session of August 16, 2022, seconded by Commissioner Trotter. The Motion received all affirmative votes. Agenda item 5. Review/approval of Financial Reports, Building Inspector’s Report, Public Works Report, Fireman’s Report and Police Report City Manager Steve Steinbach stated this is second month of fiscal year 2023, cash positions and equivalents continue to grow and remain strong, the balance sheet for the various fund accounts are also strong and the financial statement is at 16½ percent, this is five months in a row our sales tax has exceed $200,000.00, there are some minor adjustments that occurred due to a three payroll month in August and the employee retention bonuses but everything seems in order, and we will be coming back before the Board for our first amendment to address several outstanding items. Building Official Elizabeth Reed stated for the month of August there were 57 new homes under construction, there were 37 total permits issued, conducted 164 inspections, and handled 63 code compliance issues. 1  Public Works Director Richard Mills stated Geotechnology did an additional scan which looked pretty good except for the west side of the basin, we had a few questions about spacing the rebar that was in the bottom of the basin so I have instructed Geotechnology to rescan the west basin and a wall, on the Shaw’s Creek drainage project-I had a couple of contractors that I felt was really interested in the project but it is so small in scope that I will have to bid this out as a total project, I hope to get a bid packet out in the next couple of months for the FY 2023 patching project, on September 4th there was a water main break located on Old Stateline Road behind AOC, installed a new 15’ section of 6” pipe, the sewer flow to Rossville was 1,434,233 gallons which is an average of 44,819.78 gallons per day (56.02% of the allotted 80,000 gallons a day), there were 143 line locates last month, there were 117 work orders with 2 still pending. Mayor Coats stated Public Works is doing a great job removing brush from the Piper House, there will evidently be a park behind the Piper House and will hopefully have plans to show next month. Fire Chief Reed Bullock stated during the month of August, issued 7 permits, conducted 7 rough inspections and 7 final inspections, there were 37 total calls (35 in the City) and as you see in your report one of the mutual aid calls was train vs car, the car was hit in Collierville but the train didn’t stop until it was in Piperton so we assisted Collierville to make sure there was no hazmat etc. and this happened off of Commerce, we had a motor vehicle crash on Hwy 196 that took out the power pole and the lines were down so we had to shut the road down for a significant amount of time and at that same time there was a medical call and when Chickasaw finally got the power restored there was a transformer fire from one of the transformer reenergizing, Firefighter Farris taught two fire extinguisher classes at Power and Tel. Mayor Coats inquired if there is a plan to hold public classes to which Chief Bullock stated we will in the future as we are working on getting additional instructors in house so it can be offered as community events for neighborhoods, he also announced that the railroad intersection has been approved for crossing arms, it may take up to next summer to get it installed. Police Chief Phil Hendricks stated in the month of August, there were 50 dispatched calls, 3 incident reports, 1 arrest report and 1 motor vehicle crash, also a new officer joined the department in August and we had budgeted (34K to 38K) for a replacement vehicle and I would like to pursue getting the vehicle. Action taken: Vice-Mayor Binkley moved to approve all reports, seconded by Commissioner Hugh Davis. The Motion received all affirmative votes. Mayor Coats recused himself at this time, turned the meeting over to Vice-Mayor Binkley and left the meeting room. New Agenda item 6. Recess – hold Public Hearing concerning Ordinance No. 357-22, amending previously approved Master Development Plan/CD-O of Twin Lakes (approved by Ord 79-05; amended by Ord No. 109-07 and Ord No. 302-19 Action taken: Commissioner Trotter moved to recess the meeting to hold a public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Davis. The Motion received all affirmative votes. City Planner Brett Morgan stated back in May an application was made by Beau Browning to amend part of phase 1 and phase 3, within phase 1 there were two conservation lots and then in phase 3 there were 2 other conservation lots and the application that Mr. Browning made was to combine those lots making 3 conservation lots out of them and 4 standard lots that made it through the Planning Commission and came to first reading of the Board of Mayor and Commissioners and at that point it was held because of a requirement of the Planning Commission that the covenants and restrictions of the HOA would have to be considered for moving forward with this and as we have stated before on a number of cases the City does not police the CCR’s of an HOA but we will not contravene as a matter of policy those 2 covenants once we find out what they are, so it was held until we received clarification on those covenants being changed, in the meantime the applicant and the developer (Boyle Investment Company) got together on the fact that Boyle still had the declarant right of making changes to the CCR for phase 3 only, and so Mr. Browning modified his application. Commissioner Davis inquired clarification of a conservation lot. Mr. Morgan stated in the CD-O, conservation lots are lots that are a minimum of 5 acres, a home can be built on it and that acreage is counted as common open space even though it is a residential lot and so part of what needed to be considered was if taking these parts of 4 conservation lots and making them into standard lots was going to effect in any great way the overall common open space that was dedicated originally and it is very minimal and so that was not something that would prohibit this from moving forward, so the application was modified because Boyle Investment as the declarant had the right according to them and we sent our City Attorney (Gerald Lawson) to go and inspect/review the files regarding the HOA and CCR’s and our attorney came back saying they had the declarant right, modified the application to leave the 2 conservation lots in phase 1 alone and amend only the conservation lots that were in phase 3 to create on big lot 9 acre conservation lot and 2 standard lots at the end of Jay Cove and that is what has been applied for, the Planning Commission met last week to re-review the new application and recommended approval of the amendment basically adding only one lot to the overall subdivision. Commissioner Trotter stated so there is no conflict with the covenants now to which Mr. Morgan stated none that we see, no sir. Vice-Mayor Binkley inquire if we know what exactly Boyle changed in their covenants to which Mr. Morgan stated you have a copy of the actual amendment in your packet. City Attorney Gerald Lawson stated the original covenants provided for a section that required every time you added a different phase that there is an amendment made to the declaration and as a different amendment is made as a different section is added that allowed the declarant to have five years from that date to go forward to make unilateral amendments which is why as Mr. Morgan explained they weren’t able to make changes in phase 1 but they could in phase 3, phase 3 amendment was a declaration amendment number 4 that was done in 2019, declaration amendment number 5 is what they have proposed and they haven’t recorded it, they have executed it and one of the conditions for the Planning Commissions and this Board is that it will be recorded prior to the execution of any recording of any plat or this agreement and what it specifically changes is conservation lots and allows the subdivision of conservation lots 6 and 7, so it doesn’t get into any other lots in the property can be resubdivided, it specifically list the conservation lots 6 and 7 and will only be applicable to this one particular section and in meeting with the applicant and with the developer and their attorneys, we feel comfortable that this is appropriate to this situation. Resident Dan Blackman stated last week I read a portion of a letter that was put out to the ownership within 500 feet of this property and I understand that Beau Browning is the applicant, he is the owner of the property and it seems to me the way I understand the wording that application should have come from Boyle and would like some clarity on that please. Mr. Lawson stated the application is by the property owner which is Mr. Browning, the declarant was and is Boyle Investment Company, and they are the ones who retain the rights and instead of assigning those rights to Mr. Browning which arguably could have been done they took the unilateral action that was allowed in the original covenants and restrictions to make that an amendment, so for a period of five years for this section only or for any section they had the right to make unilateral amendments and it doesn’t have to through a board and that is why they made the declaration because they were the declarant which is appropriate under the way the covenants and restrictions are written. Resident Dawn Mundy stated I don’t understand is if Mr. Browning is actually making the application why doesn’t Mr. Browning have to go through our covenants, I understand Boyle can 3 do it but if he is making the application why doesn’t he have to go through our covenants, that’s two different things. Mr. Lawson stated Mr. Browning being the applicant has asked the declarant (Boyle) to make those changes, the declarant has made those changes and if the declarant had not made those changes or they had not otherwise gone through the board, either option would have been appropriate to make the amendment then this Board couldn’t or wouldn’t consider it so since they made application for the change, he asked them to do it to which Ms. Mundy stated he is making the application. Mr. Lawson stated he is making application to the City and the City would not hear his application until such time as Boyle made those changes or the HOA would make those changes either way would have been appropriate in this situation Boyle made the changes and that is why it is a condition that this can’t be done until such time as those are recorded. Commissioner Davis inquired since Boyle was the developer, they retain the right for the five years as the developer and it doesn’t matter about who owns it, they still own the right to the covenants for five years to which Mr. Lawson stated they retain the rights, yes sir, and in that five year period they could have made any other changes applicable that they see, they have unilateral authority to make changes during the five year period. Mr. Blackburn stated I think that is where the confusion is because our covenants clearly stated that there shall be no subdivision of lots, so that is why we are coming back and I understand this is a larger piece of property, what happens in the future with lots 4 and 5 is it possible that Mr. Browning could come to us and say now we would like to subdivide those lots and if you say no what stops that from happening. Vice-Mayor Binkley stated he could come to the HOA to do that but he couldn’t come to the City. Mr. Blackburn stated the only reason why he went to the City to begin with is because the declarant had the rights in phase 3, is that the way we are understanding it. Mr. Lawson stated that is right, so while you are correct that is a statement in your original covenants and restrictions that says it can’t be subdivided which is an applicable provisions they modified that provision with this amendment number 5 because it states that nothing contained to the contrary the declarant reserves the right for a period of five years from the date unilaterally amend this declaration to reform requirements of any governmental agency, federal, state and local or the requirements of any mortgage lender or for any reason the declarant seems advisable for the orderly development of Twin Lakes Subdivision, they basically reserve the right to change any section in here that they care for a period of five years and they have made that decision. Mrs. Mundy stated so it has been changed. Mr. Lawson stated yes. Mrs. Mundy stated so being on the board what time where we going to be notified, we (HOA) don’t have a piece of paper that says that he has done that. Mr. Lawson stated it has not been recorded yet, it has been executed and not recorded and one of the conditions if approved by this Board that has to be finalized and recorded and then you (HOA) would be notified. Resident Mike Nicholson stated you have heard me speak on this several times, I am upset by the way this was brought to my attention, it was a backdoor deal from the beginning, nobody can deny that, I have got counsel too and the way I read it is that amendment can be extended five years if additional properties are added to the Master Plan and no additional properties have been added, phases 2 and 3 went in but no additional properties have been added to the Twin Lakes development since 2007 and those are the understanding that me and 150 other people bought homes in that neighborhood, if Mr. Browning wants to make a change he should have come to the HOA for a 67% vote and we would have supported it but it has all been backdoor with the Mayor involved. 4  Beau Browning stated this was my idea, now looking back at it I don’t know if I could have done it any different, I was instructed to do it this way, and when all this happened we didn’t have an elected HOA board dedicated to our neighborhood, this has been in the works for over a year, in June the neighborhood took over its own HOA but this had been long in the process at that point, this was not done to make any enemies these lots have sat since 2007 and my plan was to take something to impact the community to put house there and make it look better, it was not to hurt anybody and I bought this land from the previous owner who was going to fill in the pond and place a barn back there, I plan on keeping the pond and do improvements that would be the back entrance to the Twin Lakes neighborhood and by doing this we are keeping those two cove lots and adding 1 additional lot in front of the pond where a house will be so when you turn on that street you see the pond and a beautiful house for the back entrance of the neighborhood, some people are thinking that I did this as a backdoor deal, I stood up in front of the largest meeting that this neighborhood has ever had, there was roughly 100 people at the church, I show this plan to everyone and ask for objections, there was not one objection but there were question which I answered and was completely transparent, I have not back doored or been sneaky about this what so ever, I did what I was told through my counsel to go through the proper channels to have this done, this HOA board that is here today in the neighborhood was not there so to say that, I was already two or three meetings deep in this same room when that HOA board was elected so I don’t agree with that it is not a very accurate statement, I have not been trying to pull one over, I think this is a great plan, Boyle who has some of the most beautiful developments in the Mid-South thought this was a great idea and I thought it was a great idea and so many others also think it is a great idea a good addition to this neighborhood other than a small handful of people that object to it. Mr. Blackman stated I don’t think the argument here is that is a good plan or not, I think the argument here is that there is many homeowners that feel like the system (checks and balances) that the covenants offer have been modified and I would propose that maybe before we move forward-why don’t we put it up to our vote and lets let the homeowners decide and let’s see where it goes from there, I think that is fair. Resident Scott McDaniel stated all I am hearing as far as concerns for procedural nature, I am not hearing any dispute over the plan that is really valid, I think what Mr. Browning is doing is going to add value to the neighborhood, aesthetically it is not changing code of the way those homes are going to look, there is really nothing wrong with the plans they are actually quite creative and I will agree at the time this was going through the Board wasn’t fully functional, I think we have some work to do there but as far as the plan goes is what this should really be about, the land and how it is developed I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, I don’t think anybody would dispute it and I don’t what that to be held up over some procedural concern. Mr. Nicholson stated I do dispute that now it creates the highest density in the cove that was supposed to be surrounded with two pastoral equestrian type properties which is the format in the banner of the Twin Lakes draw to come to Piperton so you are certainly taking away the sight lines of views from our homes and I second it if it is a truly good plan put it before the HOA, amend fences and do the right thing and take it off the Board and leave it with the HOA where it should be. Resident Armondi Hojdini stated just like every other homeowner in here-we all build homes in this neighborhood and I disagree with the small lots because there are smaller lots on the other cove, these lots of Mr. Browning are supposedly bigger and my only concern is I drive through estate lots that have not been developed and the grass is tall and nobody is doing anything about it and just like everyone in the neighborhood I want the neighborhood to be finished so I am pro his plan because build to finish that cove and I am looking forward to the other lots being finished, we all need to push to finish the neighborhood because let’s be honest 5 if it wasn’t for him the grass would be up to the hip, he cuts the grass on all the other lots and by law he only has to do it twice a year. Mr. Nicholson stated the HOA covers the expense of mowing the grass it they weren’t sold. Mr. Hojdini stated it looks unfinished and I apologize if I am making some people mad but lots are bigger lots than some of the other properties that are being built or have been built and if you look at the cove across the street those 3 lots there, he is proposing 2 lots instead of 3 on the other side. Mr. Browning stated those two cove lots are some of the biggest lots in the entire neighborhood and it is not a density issue, it is the same set back line that was originally on there to build a house in that cove and if you look at the original plans they have set back on those lots and an easement so ideally there was always going be houses on those lots, there are services here with water meters and sewer stub outs, I think this is a great plan. Commissioner Davis stated this seems to be an internal matter, I see good in all of it from the developers stand point yes but when you start talking about what was in the covenants and changes and coming up with a board, it still seems like to me in my opinion it is a personal matter versus this Board. Commissioner Trotter stated it looks to me like the developer went through the correct legal process to get the covenants modified and the argument really should be between the HOA and the developer for process he used and it seems to me that it has been legally done and I see no reason not to move forward with it. Mr. Lawson stated I think that is a corrective statement. Mr. Steinbach stated would like to add to what Commissioner Trotter said with no disrespect to friend or foe when it came to this Body the first time immediately I took the position that the matter wasn’t settled privately and I want to be clear that whether you take the position that it was a nefarious action on the part of any individual or group to amend the covenant and the covenant specifically referring to is a covenant that is perhaps the most common covenant in any subdivision, look at any subdivision covenant and you will see at the top of the list is that there is a prohibition of re-subdividing, so I want to make that statement and make it clear before the Board that you are not here to sit in judgement over the covenant issue and in my estimation once I heard from our City Attorney that the matter had been legally addressed, it is settled business and your charge is to weigh in the merits of the proposal itself and since I was a part of that process these conservation lots as Brett described to you were a method to secure the necessary open space, it is private open space but it contributes to their number and I have seen this development sit for a decade during the most robust building period since before the great recession and yet these lots sit and that suggest to me that they are not being well received by the market place for whatever reason and when I look at the proposal and I am not defending the proposal but in terms of the plan that is provided it doesn’t seem to me that it’s out of keeping with the intent and with regard to the other it is unfortunate on the timing call it what you will and I hope the developer who is also a resident will come together with the board and move forward with their businesses, but I do want to make that clear that this Body’s charge is not to sit in judgement over the procedure to address a legal private matter but to sit in consideration of the merits of the plan itself. Mr. Browning stated to the people here I am sorry that yall feel that way but I can’t go back now and stop because I have spent a lot of time and a lot of money on this. I can’t get to this point when the HOA board was not formed when this started, I already had plans and hired an engineer, and this was not done to hurt anybody or back door anybody. Resident Todd Flynn stated we were not notified in 2019 of covenants being changed in phase 3, secondary to that letters that circulated within 500 feet to homes, why wasn’t everyone notified in the neighborhood, we talked about the HOA not being set up, the HOA could have and should have been set up when that subdivision was 75% completed which is 115 lots, if 6 anybody follows you can’t build another 35 lots in one year, it should have been setup before that, we pushed Gary Thompson with Boyle to set up an HOA and it never got done, you are adding 1 lot to the subdivision and we are dumping 44,000 gallons a day of sewage to Rossville and the Mayor has gone to Rossville to dump more, correct me if I am wrong. Vice-Mayor Binkley stated we have a contract with Rossville that is binding from the day we started. Mr. Flynn stated we are dumping 44,000 gallons and it doesn’t matter what the contract is, we don’t have enough capacity in our own city so we are going to add another lot of sewage that we are going to dump into another city, the back door deals that the homeowners here think have gone on have gone on, the Mayor has a vested interest in this development because he is gonna get a lot, I don’t know what he is going to pay for it or if he pays for it and don’t care, he has a vested interest in here, great that he recused himself but the Mayor of any city and the developers have a vested interest in developing a neighborhood/subdivision or a community, the homeowners feel like they have been back doored because they have, there are no letters that Boyle has ever sent out that says we are looking at doing this but Boyle is responsible for everything that we are talking out here tonight. Gary Thompson with Boyle stated I am the person who inherited Twin Lakes in 2014 when Mr. Dickens retired and also our partner was John Ashworth who is now deceased, I was involved on the very front end when this came through for approval and I have been running our residential development group since 2002, Twin Lakes was set up and the way it is setup so that the perimeter of the property would look like all of Piperton-large residential lots, the interior was done through a CD-O which Steve helps us work through so we could add ½ acre lots on the interior and it does look that way, those lots have been sitting there all but two of them since 2007, I sold lot CL7 (the one with the pond) to a gentleman who was going to build a house at the end of Jay Cove and this is a very unique situation, its different because it has the high powerline that cuts it off and so you had services on one side and estate lots on the perimeter to Wright Road, so when Mr. Browning acquired that lot from another individual and then came and purchased CL6 from me and then he bought CL4 and CL5 so now he has amassed all of those lots and said here is what I would like to do is to continue that perimeter fence just like on the CL lots at the front so the fence will be there, the trees will be there and powerline separates everything anyway I want to build my house over there and raise my children but I would like to have 1 maybe 2 more lots, we sat down with Piperton to figure that out and came up with a plan that made perfect sense to us, on the statement that the HOA had not been setup-it has been setup since 2007 and has been operating completely with a board and all of the maintenance has been done since 2014, there has been controversy about that but we have been running it with a resident member since 2014 (Boyle and Will Hays) who has been on there and seen every financial statement so when we came to them this spring in an informational meeting, there were two purposes in that meeting; 1) we are going to turn this over to you later this year because we are about to be sold out and 2) I want Mr. Browning to present to all of his neighbors the plan that he has and he got up and presented the plan there was a number of questions with lots of good discussion with over a hundred people there and nobody had any objections and then I got up and said as the declarant I am going to let this happen because I believe it is in the best interest of Twin Lakes and I went through my reasoning’s of why and we have not had one house built on one of these conservation lots since 2007, I have sold them lot CL 1 has sold two or three times but they have never built, CL 6 and & had sold but never build, CL 3 has been sold but never built so in my mind there were people lining up for those smaller lots where people assumed a house would have been built anyway, I think everybody does- everyone just assumed there would be houses, in fact Mr. Nicholson who lives next door knows that before I sold him the lot for his father-in-law that I had already sold that lot because I went into the details, he knew that and to say that they thought there would never be houses there I just don’t find genuine so a lot of these things are misunderstandings but there is also just sort 7 of this desire not to understand, I think this is in the very best interest and that is why we have agreed to a modification that allows this one thing to happen and nothing else, we are not turning over the declarant role to anyone else to be the developer so we haven’t put you in the position they have just taken a position they don’t like this but can’t explain why, we put the provision in there to don’t subdivide because we didn’t want a ½ acre lot or ¼ acre lots, we don’t want zero lot lines out here but it didn’t mean it is a hard fast rule that nothing can ever change and so what this would get to is where he can do what he wants to do, I think it is way better than having a barn full of Harleys to have a million and half dollar house out there that is very attractive at the back entrance so I think there is a lot of concern where I just don’t think there is any concern to be had, there is not going to be this rapid resubdivision of lots, I think it will develop in a very orderly way then everybody can just settle and live their lives. Action taken: Commissioner Trotter moved to reconvene the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Davis. The Motion received all affirmative votes. Agenda item 7. Second Reading, Ordinance No. 357-22, amending previously approved Master Development Plan/CD-O of Twin Lakes (approved by Ord 79-05; amended by Ord No. 109-07 and Ord No. 302-19 Action taken: Commissioner Trotter moved to approve Ordinance No. 357-22 on second reading, seconded by Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Crislip abstained from the vote. The Motion received all affirmative votes. Mayor Coats returned to the meeting room and took his seat with the Board. Agenda item 8: Piperton Historical Renovation (Pinckney House) bid approval/award Mr. Mills stated bids were opened on September 8th, there was one bidder (Moss Carpenter Construction) and the bid amount was $1.9 million dollars so I am recommending to reject the bid. Action taken: Vice-Mayor Binkley moved to reject the bid, seconded by Commissioner Trotter. The Motion received all affirmative votes. Mr. Steinbach stated staff subsequently met and determined that we would like to pursue this ourselves with the City essentially serving as a general contractor if we can find the appropriate individual to assist/manage, we would seek to do it in small amounts, prioritizing the items that are necessary for us to take occupancy and delaying those things that maybe ascetic embellishments and are not absolutely critical and we would like to come back to the Board with our architects helping with that endeavor to try to break this into smaller packages beginning with the roof, electrical and fire protection for occupancy. Agenda item 9: Acknowledgement of an Assistance to Firefighters Grant from FEMA Fire Chief Bullock stated we have been awarded an Assistance to Firefighters Grant from FEMA for extrication equipment, the total of the grant is $49,583.82 with FEMA paying $47,222.68 and the City’s share would be $2,361.14. Mayor Coats stated this is great, you have come up with some good grants almost every year and it is appreciated very much. Action taken: Vice- Mayor Binkley moved to approve the Assistance to Firefighters Grant, seconded by Commissioner Crislip. The Motion received all affirmative votes. Agenda item 10. Any other old/new business, questions or matters from the audience Mr. Steinbach asked that Mr. Morgan and Mr. Matheny start briefing the Board as part of the report process. Mr. Morgan stated he would get something to the Board before the meeting also and under the heading of application pending or forthcoming and just to let you from the 8 Rossville/Piperton City limits to where the Dollar General is there is constant inquiries regarding development along that corridor and along the Hwy 72 corridor as well in Piperton for commercial, we also have Scannell Properties who has made application who I meet with earlier today and they are a national commercial/industrial speculative development company that builds huge office/warehouse developments and they are looking at potentially site on the Cox property, Heavy Machines has purchased property on Mann Drive but the application has not been made yet, back at the gateway plaza (Poplar corridor) these folks submit a plan to the Planning Commission earlier but have not made any application and still waiting on the outcome of the sewer bore and we hear from them very frequently, there is potential development at the Yancey commercial being considered, on Hwy 72-Mo Hamoud’s gas station is going in, Mueller on Mann Drive just received their CO, and 84 Lumber has a plan before the Planning Commission that was approved for renovations and they still have not finished, Commercial Filter is built and completed and we keep hearing about phase 2 of Glenn Farms on Shelby Drive but every time an application is forthcoming it stops but fully expects something to happen on that and we also have a number of residential developments that are under development as far as certain phases of it are concerned; Madeline Farms off of Raleigh LaGrange has received approval for phase 3 which is 33 lots, Piperton Hills phase 1 is 31 lots and under construction and Crown Vista which is 11 Lots both are off of Keough, Piper Hollow MUPD has phases 1 and 2 approved for 76 lots off of Keough, Piperton Preserve phase 6 has another 50 lots approved but they have not received DRC approval, Lakes of Greenbrier phase 3 was just approved for 71 lots and phase 4 will follow behind it and we are expending another CD-O plan development going out to Hwy 196 to follow phase 4, Shaws Creek phase 2 was approved which is another 18 lots off of Raleigh LaGrange and besides the applications for retail and residential that we have pending. We have also been doing a number of in-house things; the Branding Committee has been meeting on the gateway signage for the City with new monument signs to go out our gateways at each end of Hwy 57 and Hwy 72 with some minor gateway signage on the entrances at Hwy 196 and that signage has gotten to a point that the Branding Committee will approve it and out of that is also coming building signage for monument signs to identify specific buildings like the Public Works building, the Piper House building, and so forth, it will all become a thematic signage throughout the City. We should be receiving the Piper Park mounted boards for review. Last week the Planning Commission approved the amended Subdivision Regulations which address the Public Chapter 1128 regarding the required dedication of the property by the City for land owners and to add information regarding the requirement of the United Station Postal Office for cluster mailboxes in new residential developments. The Major Road Committee also met to go over the impact of Chapter 1128 on the City and the major road plan and also looked at the alignment for Shelby Drive. We are in the process of updating all of the City maps. The Mayor brought up last week that we need to start considering Airbnb so we will start looking into that and re-address the land use chart. Mr. Matheny stated Brett did mention the railroad bore and we have submitted plans to the railroad that have been approved and they have sent an agreement which the City Attorney is reviewing the terms of the agreement and that is in the final stages now before we sign and execute that agreement and pay the fees so that could be ready for bid and construction relatively soon. On the Waterline extension from the end of Lake Edge down to Freeman and Critton those plans have been submitted to TDEC and are awaiting their approval then we can ready for bid and construction. We have submitted the plans for sewer service to Piperton Farms to TDEC and we have received a number of review comments back that we need to address. The TDOT Keough road project in front of Pyramex and Power & Tel is under way and the completion date is towards the end of the year. Richard and I are still working on the evaluation of the Wastewater Plant. Commissioner Davis inquired on the dead-end of Keough, I see the road bed is in. 9  Mr. Matheny stated the developer of Piperton Hills Phase 1 is realigning Keough to make kind of a curve and then tie back in before it gets to Parnell and then Parnell Road will be their construction road for that phase 1 development and that is under way, they are about 50% done with their sewer work and 30% done on their water installation and their rough grading is done, so they are making progress. Mayor Coats welcomed Walter Priddy back to town. Agenda item 11. Adjournment Action taken: Vice-Mayor Binkley made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Trotter. The Motion received all affirmative votes and the meeting was adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly Holloway, City Recorder Approved: _________________________________date:______________________ 10