Call the meeting to order.

This

pre-agenda.

I'm gonna take a roll call this time.

Mayor Pretem, are you here?

Yeah.

Councilmember Joyner, you're here?

Here.

Councilmember Andrews, you here?

Here.

Councilmember Lyle?

Here.

Councilmember Santa Guida?

Here.

Councilmember Clinton Quintano?

Here.

And the chair is here.

Everybody's here and accounted for two presentations tomorrow night.

Consent agenda.

C one is a resolution authorized city manager.

Um to enter into an agreement to purchase 48 sets of firefighting coats and pants from NAFCO of Decatur, Alabama for 213, 702.

Then we have uh C2 is a resolution authorized city manager to enter to an agreement with Dr.

Yale Gold PC for professional behavioral health and wellness services for Wilmington Fire and Police Department personnel for 600,000 over three years.

C three is approval of the minutes of the city council's agenda.

And then we have uh several public hearings.

Item public hearing, PH one is an ordinance amending the land development code chapter 18 to allow project projecting signs in the MD 10 and MD 17 multi-dwelling residential zoning districts.

PH2 is an ordinance amending the official zoning maps of the city of Wilmington to rezone a 0.514 acre portion of a 1.26-acre parcel located at 428-430 and 432 Eastwood Road from R15 Moderate Density Single Dwelling District to O and I office and institutional district.

And

PH3 is an ordinance amending the official zoning maps of the city of Wilmington to rezone a 3.1 acre uh portion of a 6.3-acre parcel located at 5,000 Market Street from CS Commercial Services District to RB Regional Business District.

And then PH4 is an ordinance amending the land development code chapter 18 to restore group day facilities as a permitted use in various zoning districts and to reestablish and modify the definition and prescribe conditions for a group day facility.

Mr.

Mayor, yes, sir.

I have a question about this item for PH4.

Um my first question would be when we go through this process to add a definition like this.

Do we take any time to look at the city maps and consider how many parcels would fall into this category?

I'm assuming that we don't draft a definition that isn't applicable everywhere.

In this case, we um good morning, I'm sorry.

Um in this case, we just restored the definition that was in the previous code and then it put it back in the same districts that it was allowed in the previous case.

We didn't go back and look at all the number of parcels in those districts.

We just went back to the districts that were applicable at that time.

Okay.

Um I apologize, I'm not I'm not gonna be here, I'm gonna be absent from tomorrow night's meeting, so I just wanted to say this this morning while we were all here.

Um I'm a little bit of two minds on this item.

I mean, I think it's become clear that we do need a definition, and so I certainly don't have any objections to us revisiting the old one and putting this one back in.

But

the the challenge that I have with this is that this really clearly sprang up from a group of people excuse me who were in good faith trying to do something good in our community, and in some ways are are feeling in many ways are feeling a need that the city um doesn't have too many particular other avenues to fill.

And from where I sit, that group very specifically went through um, went out in search of and tried to go through a process that was gonna be done by right.

And we had neighbors who came in who were frustrated and who were upset, and rightfully so.

I think they had very valid concerns as well.

Um, but they did have an avenue for appeal.

They could have either gone to the board of adjustment or they could have filed a case in superior court.

Those are available avenues, those are valid avenues.

They're simply not frequently used, and people are not familiar with them.

And so when we run into issues in the future where avenues exist, but people are maybe not super familiar with them and are frustrated with the process.

I don't know that the answer is always just to change the process.

Um that's not the full story in this case.

Obviously, this was previously in there, and we've identified that we probably do need a definition, but I just wanted to point out that I

in

the future I I don't want us to be writing policies to exclude people who have gone about the process in what they thought was the right way.

Um and again, I would want to commend and suggest to people that if you can do something by right under the code, that is the correct process to follow.