Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-2026 RegularDunn City Council 117 Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 24, 2026 6:30 p.m., Dunn Municipal Building Minutes PRESENT: Mayor William P. Elmore Jr., Mayor Pro Tern April Gaulden, Council Members J. Wesley Sills, Raquel McNeil, Billy N. Tart, Alan Hargis, and Dr. David L. Bradham. Also present: City Manager Justin Hembree, Assistant City Manager Billy R. Godwin, FIR Director Connie Jernigan, Finance Director Cary McNallan, Senior Planner Stephanie Goodrich, Police Chief Lynn Gay, Parks and Recreation Director Brian McNeill, Public Works Director Dwayne Williams, Collection & Distribution Manager Billy Cottle, Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Dukes, Water Plant Manager Ian Stroud, Code Enforcement Officer Alan Canady, Administrative Support Specialist Christy Sweeney, City Attorney Tilghman Pope and City Clerk Melissa Matti. CALL TO ORDER Mayor William P. Elmore, Jr. called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, welcoming attendees including an AP Government class from Midway High School. He welcomed everyone in attendance and asked attendees to silence their cell phones to avoid interruptions during the meeting. INVOCATION Reverend Tim Inman gave the invocation from Christ Church of Dunn. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member McNeil led in the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSIDERATION & APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Motion by Council Member Bradham, second by Council Member Hargis to approve the agenda. All in favor. Motion unanimously approved. PRESENTATIONS School Bus DriverAppreciation Week2026 Council Member Sills recognized School Bus Drivers for their vital role in the public school system, and that proclamation declared March 23-27, 2026 as School Bus Driver Appreciation Week in Dunn, encouraging students and residents to express appreciation to the drivers. Representatives from the school system were present to receive the proclamation. A copy of School Bus Drive Appreciation Week2026 Proclamation (P2026-06) is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment#1. Retirement ofK9Apacs "Pac Man" Police Chief Gay presented the Retirement of K9 Apacs Resolution. He is affectionately known as "Pac Man," born in 2016 and handled by Sergeant Adam Sikorsky. During his service, Pac Man's achievements included seizing 9,000 grams of marijuana, over 600 grams of methamphetamine, 370 grams of cocaine, 15 illegally possessed firearms, and $278,521 in narcotics -related currency. The dog became USPCA certified in 2025 and participated in numerous community events and assisted multiple law enforcement agencies including the FBI, DEA, and ATF. City Manager Hembree explained that a formal resolution was required to declare the canine as surplus property and authorize ownership transfer to Sergeant Sikorsky for retirement. Motion by Council Member Hargis, second by Council Member Sills to approve the resolution allowing Pac Man to retire and be given to his handler Sergeant Adam Sikorsky. The motion carried unanimously. A copy of the Resolution Retiring APACS —A Canine Assigned to the Dunn Police Department (R2026-10) is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment #2 Certified Police Canine Instructor Chief Gay announced thatSergeantAdam Sikorsky achieved certification as a Police Canine. Instructor through East Coast Canine on February27, 2026, after completing over 500 hours of training. As part of his certification, Sikorsky conducted and supervised a K9 Basic 118 Handler aonool for. eight (8) K9 teams, training them in narcotics, explosives, and arson detection. The department expressed pride in Sikorsky's accomplishment and looked forward to expandingthe K9 program in the future. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Mayor Elmore explained that there would be no Public Comment Period. •All items were related to Planning matters. CONSENTAGENDA Mayor Elmore presented the Consent Agenda items, which included two'(2) items: • Approval of March 10, 2026 Work Session Minutes • Approval of Budget Amendments for Various Operating Accounts. Motion by Council Member Sills, seconded by Council Member McNeil, to approve all Consent Agenda items. All in favor; Motion carried unanimously.A copy of the Budget Amendment (BA-2026-24) is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment 3. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE ACTION Reconsideration of Rezoning Application (RZ-25-04) Dogwood Knoll Street & Fairground Road Opened Public Hearing at6:47p.m. Closed Public Hearing at7:07p.m. Assistant City Manager Billy Godwin explained that this rezoning application was previously denied by Council in January, but due to unclear procedural requirements compliance, the Council vacated its prior decision and scheduled a new public hearing. The matter was presented as a fresh consideration. Senior Planner Stephanie Goodrich presented the application to rezone six (6) parcels totaling 1.9 acres from C-2, Shopping Center to R-7, Residential. The property is located in the Gateways and Corridors character area according to the future land use map, which allows for mixed uses including single family residential. The Planning Board had recommended approval of the rezoning request at its January 6, 2026 Planning Board meeting. Attorney Benton Sawrey representing the applicant argued that the current C-2 zoning was incompatible with the surrounding residential development, noting that six (6) single family homes border the property. He contended that a shopping center would be inappropriate given the residential context and limited infrastructure, particularly the two-lane Fairground Road and residential cul-de-sac access via Dogwood Knoll Court. Council members raised concerns about access issues, noting that two (2) lots appeared Landlocked with Davis Street existing only on paper. Council Member Sills questioned whether DOT would approve multiple driveways on Fairground Road and whether creating access roads would reduce lot sizes, making development inconsistent with surrounding R- 10 zoned properties. Council Member Hargis pointed outthat no other properties in the area were zoned R-7, questioning the compatibility argument. No members of the public spoke in opposition to the request. After closing the public hearing, Council Members discussed concerns about traffic access, consistency with the existing neighborhood character, and the appropriateness of R-7 zoning in an area surrounded by R-10 development. Motion by Council Member Sills, second by Council Member Hargis to deny Rezoning Application RZ-25-04 and adopt the governing board statement to deny. In accordance with G.S. 160D-605, and no twithstan ding the staff analysis and the recommendation made bythe Planning Board, the City Council finds (A) that approval of RZ-25-04 Dogwood Knoll Street & Fairground Road, would be inconsistent with the City of Dunn Land Use Plan designation as a Gateway and Corridor entrance to the City and that the current C-2 Shopping Center zoning remains the most appropriate zoning district for this property and this Council further finds (B) that denial of the rezoning request is reasonable taking into consideration (i) the size, physical conditions including the existence of an unopened street on the property, and other attributes of the area proposed to be rezoned, (ii) the benefits and detriments to the landowners, the neighbors, and the surrounding community, (III) the relationship between the current actual and permissible development on the tract and 119 adjoining areas including the existence of commercial zoning across the street and the residential development that would be permissible under the proposed amendment when commercial development remains preferred forthis property; and (iv) any and all comments made during the public hearing on this matter. All in favor. Motion unanimously approved to deny. Special Use Permit Application (SUP-26-01) N. Clinton Avenue City Attorney Tilghman Pope conducted this quasi-judicial hearing for Rodney Dunn's application for a Special Use Permit to allow townhomes on three (3) parcels (PIN#s 1516- 89-5125.000, 1516-89-4078.000, and 1516-89-4031.000) totaling 0.86 acres which are unaddressed and is located at the corner of North Clinton Avenue and East Cole Street. The property is currently zoned RM multifamily district. Opened Evidentiary Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Closed Evidentiary Hearing at 7:54 p.m. City Attorney Pope explained that this, matter is judicial in nature and will be conducted in accordance with special due process safeguards. At this time, all persons that wish to provide testimony, during this hearing, should come forward to be sworn in, please. Several signed up - Geraldine Goodman, Larry Wood, and Rodney Dunn. If there are others, if you plan to testify at,this hearing, please come forward to the podium. City of Dunn Planner as well. Stephanie, if you could locate a Bible underneath there for us, please. If each of you will place your left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimonyyou're about to give to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Yes. Attorney: Thankyou. You may be seated at this time. Mr. Mayor, to explain the matter. First, we're going to hear from our Senior Planner, Stephanie Goodrich, then from the applicant and his witnesses, and then from the opponents to the request. Parties may cross-examine witnesses after each witness testifies when questions are called for. If you would like the Council to see written evidence such as maps or reports or exhibits, the witness who is most familiar with those matters, should presentthatto Council and askthat it be introduced into evidence. We cannot and will not accept reports from persons who are not here to testify and be subject to cross examination. I did not see any attorneys present that would be representing any of the parties here this evening. So, I will now open the meeting as Case Number SUP-26-01, which is a Special Use Permit Application, and ask for testimony from our Planning staff. Senior Planner Goodrich: Thank you. I greatly appreciate you'reading the PIN numbers into the record for me. As he mentioned, this applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to construct townhomes in the RM zoned district. Townhomes are permitted on properties in the RM zoning districts only through issuance of a Special Use Permit. The district RM applies in residential areas and contains provisions for single family and multifamily development. So, he is able by right to build duplexes on those lots, but he is proposing townhomes. The subject parcel is currently vacant and undeveloped. These lots are flat and unremarkable. There's no flooding hazard, wetlands, or any encumbrances to the development of those lots. They seem to have been undeveloped for a long period of time, and there are three (3) existing curb cuts onto South Clinton Avenue. The Future Land Use Plan classification identifies this area as a Traditional Neighborhood & Gateways and Corridors across Clinton as illustrated in the Future Land Use Map, which is in your packet. The special use proposed is consistent with the adopted Land Use Plan. In traditional neighborhoods, which are primarily comprised of single-family residential uses with scattered small scale, multifamily uses and townhomes, the character is defined by established, often historic neighborhoods, street connectivity, and pedestrian facilities that 120 t provide access to downtown and gateways and corridors. This side of the street is considered to be a gateway and corridor. That character area includes areas of Dunn that are adjacent to downtown, several prominent entrances into the City, and many of these areas were identified in the City's Strategic Vision Plan as opportunities for improvement and redevelopment. The associated plan goals and policies that may be considered include the following: The Future Land Use Plan is to strengthen Dunn's identity, enhance its character by encouraging high quality design throughout the City, develop and design standards for residential projects, and encourage a range of housing types based on the availability of infrastructure, proximity to services and amenities, and compatibility with existing development as described in the Future Land Use Map. The surrounding land use to the north is a gas station and a strip shopping center which is C3, Single family homes on the east and on the west are C3 with a religious institution and a single-family house, and to the south is single family housing. For consideration, the Council must vote to either approve, deny, or postpone the decision to another meeting within 60 days for the Special Use Permit request. Special Use Permit Applications are quasi-judicial, and the Council must make a final decision based upon whether the applicant has met the Findings of Fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. Members of the public wishing to speak to the application should take a sworn oath, which we have done. There is a list of Findings of Fact in your staff report. I do encourage you to read those out when you make the motion and Findings of Fact. I'd be glad to answer questions about the Staff Report. City Attorney Pope: Do you wish to introduce the Staff Report and the application into evidence? Senior Planner Goodrich: Yes, sir. City Attorney Pope: It is so received. Are there any questions from Mayor or Council for the Senior Planner? We will now hear from the applicant and other proponents. Mr. Dunn? City Attorney Pope: I'm sorry. We're going to hearfrom the applicant first. Oh, okay. City Attorney Pope: If you're a proponent, you can speak after the applicant, but the applicantwill come first, please. Rodney Dunn/Applicant: Thank you. Mayor, Council. My name is Rodney Dunn. That's 202 West Stony Brook Court in Benson, North Carolina. For those of you who don't know, I actually own Dunn Outdoors, the business there on the street. So, I'm very much a proponent of the town growing and looking good coming in, especially on 301 coming that way. So, I bought this property, I think it was about four (4) years ago. It was kind of a mess when I bought it. Itwas grown up. I spent sometime and money outthere personally cleaning it up. Picked a lot of pecans up under that tree. But finally, I just decided I need to do something with it. I mean, when you come around that curve and you're right there at that intersection, the gas station. I'm not sure exactlywhat's going on at that corner with the gas station, but clearly, they're developing something else there. I went and met with the City, metwith the Planner, and kind of talked aboutthe different options, the zoning, and a couple of things. One of the things I had considered was some commercial opportunities. It's not zoned commercial. I'd have to go through that process, but I was kind of considering. You've got houses on one side, but then you've got the gas station on one side and a church on the other side. So, that didn't necessarily feel right for me. So, in talking to them, the residential famity went through a couple options around like townhomes and duplexes. I wanted towalk you through a little bit of the process of that. I reconciled it with. In the concept of duplexes, I'm really not intending on rental places goingthere. It's really not a rental place that I wanted to see. There're some areas in that vicinity, I'd say, really need to improve, housing wise. And so, with the duplex area, which I wouldn't have gotten a special proof of the problem is you can't sell those as individual references, which would basically imply that that would go to r - 121 an investor, who is then going to rent them. And that really wasn't the route I wanted to go. So that's the reason I just said no, I'd rather go with the Special Use Permit with the townhomes being built to high standards. On the property, there are three (3) driveways already cut in on the front - North Clinton. And in talking to the Planner, I said, hey, I want to be conscious of traffic and access to them. There're some possible layouts where there's side access. It would be in a corner lot, so we could come off of East Cole Street on the side there. Like I said, to me, it's really about curb appeal when you come around that curve and put something there that's kind of eye catchy. So, that that's how it comes to the conclusion of, like, there's an option of rezoning commercial, there was an option of duplexes. Again, for those reasons I stated, I really didn't want to put that on that particular lot. So, I felt like the middle ground in that transition zone between commercial and being conscious of the residential ones that are there is not just going to stick in a commercial building in their backyard. So that's how I come to that middle ground of townhomes, where my vision is that they'd be like single family residences for people to buy and live in them and not be for rental. I'd just like to saythanks to Stephanie and Will. Theywere super helpfulto workwith as I kind of went through the evaluation process. I'll be glad to answer any questions. City Attorney Pope:Thankyou. Questions from Mayor or Council for Mr. Dunn? Council Member Sills: Mr. Dunn, you're going to have a lot of impervious surface, which is going to create storm water. Did you have any engineers or anyone talk about stormwater mitigation? Applicant: Well, in talkingto them, they said, firstto get it approved, then go getthe engineer to actually do the design. But anything that's required by law as far as the impervious surface and what would fit on the side versus pervious, we would meet all of those regulations or any of those requirements that are there. Just the same thing for setbacks, driveway access, all that stuff would meet whatever requirements are there for those. Council Member McNeil: My question is as far as the gateway corridor goes. As we see it, sometimes there is a lot of traffic that comes off 95. It's used as a detour. Especially when it's blocked there. Yeah. When it's used as a detour. And I just think I'm again on the traffic thing. I just think it's not in a good area for traffic access since, you know, being in a residential area. I mean, it's enough problems there with the backup that we get there sometime from the detours. Applicant: That's why I was like, the side street gives actually access where when we sit down with an engineer and design, if it's approved. That's one of the options thatwe wanted to look at was actually possibly giving access on the side street and not even coming off North Clinton in the front. Council Member McNeil: But you mentioned that there were already places cut. Applicant: That was there before. Yeah. That just happened to be there when I bought the lots. Council Member McNeil: Theywere? Okay. Applicant: In fact, I think there's actually even the water meter services in front of those lots. Theywere there when I bought them. That's not anything I put in. Mayor Pro Tem Gaulden: So, would your entrance be off Clinton, oryou would have it coming off Cole St. even though there's driveway access on Clinton Avenue? Applicant: We would look at that and work with the City and the Planner and DOT and see what's the best option as far as mitigating traffic. But it comes off Cole Street. If that is with the layout. Right? And then we just take those all you have to do is just recurve the ones on North Clinton and just cut those off. Mayor Pro Tem Gaulden: So, is your minimum three (3) townhomes? Applicant: Minimum three (3)? We didn't even put a number on there. Council Member McNeil: I read three (3). 122 Applicant: It's just basic whether or not use of three (3) parcels. Council: It is 3 parcels, but you may put on more. Applicant: Okay. Yeah.. Because the way they explained it to me was, I could actually go without even comingfor a Special Use Permit, I could come and putthree (3) duplexes there. And for the reason I stated, I didn't want to go that route because you can't sell this as. individual residences, they're basically turning into rentals with investors, and l didn't want rental property there. Council Member Hargis: ,Rodney, when you were talking about you were looking at the different zoning based like commercial or, you know, doing what you're doing. You know, what about residential? You could get a rezoning for that, I'm pretty sure, pretty easily to have single family residence instead of multifamily residence, and it would probably not be sold to renters or whatever, you know. That would be single family people living there. Applicant: Yeah. I mean, that's an option. You could build.single family homes there. That's an option. Council Member Hargis: That's kind of what's around there. You know? Applicant: Yeah. Well, it's really 50/50. Right? On one side of the street is a gas station, which they're building another commercial right on the corner. It's a church in front of me, and then the comfort air condition is, like, -diagonal on this corner. So, it's like 50 Percent thatway is commercial, and 50 percent that way is residential. I will note that when I actually did the cleanup on the back of the lot, there's a line of trees that were back there. I tried to preserve that as much as possible justto create some delineation around the neighbors and the lots. I know I Worked with some of the neighbors there to just try to preserve that too to create some buffer. But that's what I did. Council Member McNeil: It would be nice if it could be kept as single family residential, though. Applicant: It would be. City Attorney Pope: At this time, we're just asking questions of Mr. Dunn. Does anybody else have any questions for him? No response. Applicant: Okay. Thank you for your time. City Attorney Pope: Is there any other proponent of the application that have been sworn to testify that would like to speak? Larry Wood/Proponent: Yes, sir. City Attorney Pope: Are you a proponent? Are you in favor of the application? Larry Wood/Proponent: I am. Yes, sir. City Attorney Pope: If you'll come forward, please. State your name and address, please. Larry Wood/Proponent: My name is Larry Wood. I live at 4536 NC 50 South in Benson. I had two (2) reasons for coming here tonight. One is Mr. Dunn's business. The second one is to tell this Council that area of this town has come up lately very much. I think it's uplifted as much as any community I've seen in a longtime. North Clinton, North Magnolia, The property owners down there have done great. Other than me, I own three (3) houses on North Magnolia. It's the reason I'm here. One of them abutts the back of his property. I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm just a local property owner there and I don't care what you put there, you're going to have less property, less traffic there I think, than you would have with any commercial building, and anytime you've got development anywhere you've got traffic. You've got an additional traffic situation, but I just feel like it's a continuation of the uplifting of that part of town. That's just my opinion. Thankyou for the opportunityto express it. City Attorney Pope: Thank you, sir. If you'll wait just one second, Mr. Wood, in case anyone has any questions. Does Mayor or Council, anybody have any questions for Mr. Wood? Thank you, sir. 123 Are there any other proponents in favor of the application that have been sworn to testify that wish to testify at this time? Okay. We will now hear from people opposing the request. So, Ms. Goodman, if you'll state your name and address for the record, please. Sterling Goodman/Opponent: My name is Sterling Goodman, and I live at 800 North Clinton Avenue, right on that property. And I did have on my phone what I was going to tell you, but it's gone off. And I've had my granddaughter and daughter just keep putting it on. My grandson tells me they need a special class for the elderly as far as these phones are concerned. But I'll just tell you, I've lived there for over fifty (50) years on the corner beside his property. When he comes to cut the grass and everything, he'll be cutting it right beside my house. And I'm not really sure about town homes or anything like that, but I think that where I live it is right there with other neighbors Single family homes probably would be good, but as far as the townhomes or anything like that, I think would take away from the communityfeelthere. And my concern is that you take into consideration the neighbors, the Location, and across is street is the church. Again, that it is more of a neighborhood for families than any type of I guess you would say, it's just it's just home. It's just where you would want to build a house or have family Live. And that is my concern, as far as doing townhomes, especially if they're going to be built together. And no proof, you know, it would be more appropriate to have houses instead of townhouses or apartments. That's the only concern that I have. City Attorney Pope: Anybody have any questions for Ms. Goodman? Thank you, ma'am. Sterling Goodman/Opponent: Uh-huh. Thank you. City Attorney Pope: Anyone else that's been sworn to testify that wishes to speak in opposition to the application? At this time, we will now entertain any further questions from the City Council Members for the applicant, proponents, or opponents. Once the Public Meeting is closed, the only questions posed to the applicant proponents or opponents shall be for clarification only. City Attorney Pope: No new evidence may be introduced after closing the evidentiary hearing. Does anyone on the Council have any further questions for either the Applicant or Proponents or Opponents that have previously testified? Council Member Sills: I've got a question for Mr. Dunn that I forgot to ask him. City Attorney Pope: Mir Dunn, can you comeback, please? Council Member Sills: I'm sorry to make you walk twice. Applicant: That's alright. I need to get my steps in today. Council Member Sills: I understand. The townhomes, you said you want to sell them as individual units. Applicant: Mhmm. That would be the intent. Yeah. Council Member Sills: Yeah. Okay. And would the complex have a HOA? Applicant: We haven't gotten to that point in the actual design, but that I would intend that that could definitely be put in place, if that's a concern of it not being there. Council Member Sills: We have some townhouse complexes that don't have HOAs. Applicant: Okay. Council Member Sills: And that is a concern. Applicant: It is a concern. Concern from like.... City Attorney Pope: Let me let me see if I can clarify for Councilman Sills. A property owner association that is responsible for keeping the grass cut, keeping the garbage picked up 124 Council Member Sills: Right. City Attorney Pope: Things of that nature where each unit in the townhome development would pay monthly dues to see that those things were accomplished. Applicant: So, I think the intent of the question is to try to ensure that there's a certain level of standard that those that property is kept. Is that kind of what .... Council Member Sills: Yes. Applicant: What we're getting at? Applicant: Yeah. I mean, I don't see why that wouldn't be put in place. We haven't got that far into the design and discussion action implementation, but I hear where you're coming from, actually. City Attorney Pope: So, we're at the point in the hearing where the Council could not only ask the Applicant questions, but to ask the Applicant if he's willing to consider any conditions for approval of the Special Use Permit? So, are you asking him if he would accept the condition that a property owner association would be required for the townhome development? Council Member Sills: Well, if I remember correctly, we've asked that before of other developers, and we've also asked for a class a vegetative buffer and things like that too. Is this when we ask those questions and have that City Attorney Pope: Well, the buffer, you can ask your planner. The buffer is already required by code. If there's some buffer beyond what's required by code, then, yes, this would be where you would ask for it. Council Member Sills: We've also asked for, like, lattice around the dumpster area and things like that. City Attorney Pope: This would be the time to ask for any conditions that you would like the applicant to consider as a part of approval. Council Member Sills: Mr. Dunn, would you be receptive to having a very stringent homeowners association, as well as increased vegetative buffering for the neighbors? Applicant: Yeah. I'm definitely willing to consider it. I just kind of need to quantify what that is. Right? City Attorney Pope: I don't mean to I don't mean to interrupt you. So, the property owner association is sufficiently defined. I don't think you can just say vegetative buffer. I think you would have to ask him to consider what beyond what is required of the code that you're asking of him, and you may have to ask your Planner about that. Property owner association would be for maintenance of the common areas of the townhomes, which would include grass and bushes and trash and things of that nature. Applicant: I don't think that is an unacceptable condition for me, if that's what is being requested. Yes. Thank you. City Attorney Pope: If you want to ask them about buffer, you may want to get your Planner up hereto specify exactly what it is you're asking them to consider. Council Member Sills: Miss Goodrich, I believe the term is class a vegetative buffer we've used before. Am I correct or not? Senior Planner Goodrich: For this particular area, because the zoning the underlying zoning would be residential multifamily and it's surrounded by residential multifamily. There would be no required vegetative buffer by ordinance. Council Member Sills: So, none is required. If we want to support this then... City Attorney Pope: Yes. We need to have that conversation. Before you ask that question, Ms. Goodrich. If you could stay up here for questions. So, the surrounding properties are also zoned multifamily. Is that what you just said? Planner: Yes. 125 City Attorney Pope: Okay. Alright. So, yeah. if your Planner has told you that no buffer would be required. If you're going to ask the applicant to consider a buffer between adjoining properties, you'll need to define exactly what it does. Ms. Goodrich, you may want to stay. You may have to help Councilman Sills define what this looks like as far as with the type of buffer that he's asking Mr. Dunn.to consider. Council Member Sills: Didn't we do it on Bruce Drive, a class a vegetative buffer? it was trees. It was like azaleas and dogwoods and, like, little bushes that could only grow 5 feet tall. I mean, it was fairly detailed. Council Member Bradham: I don't know what that one's at, what it looks like. Yeah. Council Member Sills: I think to help with some neighbors that have concerns, valid concerns about aesthetics and changing the culture of the neighborhood. The term is Class Avegetative buffer. City Attorney Pope: That terminology in the code and the UDO such that you can explain to Mr. Dunn what would be required if that were the condition? Senior Planner Goodrich: I would have to lookthat up. I can'tthink ofwhatthatwould be off the top of my head. But we could specify a number of trees per linear foot, the type of vegetation we want to see. Is it hedge row? Is it tree? Would a fence be for creating this area instead of vegetative buffer? There are a number of things that we could use in a buffer instead of vegetation. But if vegetation is what you want to do, we can certainly talk about a Class A, but I'd have to look that up. Applicant: Yeah. And I think so if I'm kind of hearing the concern, right, creating, like, some buffer there. So, on the on the backside of the lots, like, it's pretty thick now, like, on the property line. Like, you can't see the other side. One of the issues I found, honestly, with vegetative buffers is, like; when they're on the property line, right, those have to be maintained on both sides, right, on the back side. And then on the side for the home that's on North Clinton; there's a fence on her property now as well as a line of bushes that are there. So, it's kind of hard to see the house from the lot now. I mean, we could always put Like an extra row of fence or bushes down that side to block that off even more. But it's hard to say. I'm not against that. It's just hard to say without something quantifiable. I'm an engineer, so it's numbers and clarification for me. If it comes back and says, well, we want 50 feet, then that may not even make it feasible. So, I just don't know the specifics of what to say yes or no to in that regard. But I'm open to working with the Planning Board to create somethingthere, and then as faras placinga dumpster in an area that's notvisible rightfrom the main street, and it's off to the side, it's hidden and protected. Because like I said, I own a business a few blocks down; so I want that section coming in there to look nice. Council Member Hargis: I've got a question for the Planner. You had said that there were multifamily houses around there, and in the packet here, it says that the surrounding areas to the north was a gas station, east was single family homes, west was a religious institution with a single-family home, and then south was single-family homes. Planner: I believe I mentioned it was zoned for multi -family. It's developed as single-family for the most part, but it's zoned multi family. Council Member Hargis: The single-family homes are zoned for multifamily. Planner: Yes. - Council Member Hargis: But they're single-family homes? Planner: Theywere developed as single-family. Yes. Mayor Pro Tern Gaulden: Can you repeat that? I couldn't hear you. Planner: The surrounding area is zoned multifamily. So, as you go east of Clinton, it's zoned multifamily, but it's developed as single family. Mayor Pro Tem Gaulden: Thank you City Attorney Pope: If I could return to council. 126 Council Member Sills: Well, I'll tell you what, I'll withdraw the request for the vegetative buffer, but I do appreciate your willingness to compromise on the homeowner's association. Applicant: Absolutely. City Attorney Pope: And I want to clarify, Mr. Dunn, you and you mentioned this that you're willingto accept as a condition of approvalthatthe dumpsterwould be contained at the rear of the property in an enclosed area? Is that... Applicant: Until I have the actual... I would probably say we would try to make it as less obvious as possible until that actual final site layout is done and where we could actually position it and put it. It's the same thing kind of with businesses like we even deal with the store. Right? We try to hide it as much as we can behind the building. We'll do the best we can. City Attorney Pope: Would you agree as a condition that the dumpster would be in an enclosed area wherever it ends up on the property? Senior Planner Goodrich: Dumpster would not be required. They can have a single-family style trash pickup. City Attorney Pope: Then, would you accept as a condition that if a dumpster were utilized for garbage, that it would be contained in an enclosed area? Applicant: Yes, Ok. Council Member Hargis: One more question for you. So, if all of the other areas are zoned multi -family, but they're developed as single-family, is that that's what I heard you say, right? Planner: That's right. Council Member Hargis: Right? Planner: That's correct. Council Member Hargis: Why did you not consider that? Applicant: Consider single family? Council Member Hargis: Mhmmm Applicant: Frankly, the finances of using that piece of land are not that economically feasible, to be fully transparent. I mean, you've got three (3) lots, and you put three (3) single family,residences there. I'm not an individual home builder, so that's not what I'm looking to do as an individual. Financially, given that the other side is commercial with a gas station and the heat and air and the thing, if itwas purely financial with that route, I'd go commercial. I'd be asking for a rezoning of commercial. So, to me, this was a middle ground, both fitting within the community, what's around it, as well as, like, financially for myself. Council Member Dr. Bradham: Question to the Planner. Have there been any traffic count studies? Or is that not necessary, based on the current zoning? I mean, how does that work? Planner: Based on this request, it's not large enough area to trigger that. Council Member McNeil: I guess I have a question for Stephanie also. I saw in here curb appeal. I don't knowwhat that means, you know, from Mr. Dunn, but I was wondering, would that include, like, curbing and drainage since that's not there on Cole Street? Planner: On Cole Street? Council Member McNeil: Yeah. On Cole. Because this is where he's talking about the driveways. He's thinking aboutthem coming out on Cole Street. There's no drainage. There's no sewage over there and curbing. So once these, if they are built, would that be part of the curb appeal? Applicant: We haven't got a final site plan design. It's kind of interesting because I actually just drove by on the way here. Like, on the other side of the street, they're just paving it straight to the street. 127 Council Member McNeil: Exactly. That's my question. Because like on North Clinton, there is curbing for sewage and drainage. And when again, there's a sidewalk Right. Down the down the Butthere's nothingthere on Cole. So, I was just wondering, is that part of the curb appeal? Applicant: There would be in the design, itwould have a driveway, like Cole Streetfor access. But I we looked at I kind of theoretically looked at couple of designs. I want to make it look good because you could actually come off Cole Street and come in the front, potentially come in in the back. Until we actually lay that down with an engineer... But it would not be where anybody could drive anywhere off of Cole Street. Council Member McNeil: Okay. But my question is sewage, drainage, and curbing, having a curb. I mean curb and gutter. Mayor Pro Tem Gaulden: Yes. There we go. Applicant: Until we get to that part of, like, the soil and water drainage on the side, like, I can'tsaythat. None of those ones down the street beside it have it, further down Cole Street. Council Member McNeil: But you said you wanted to make it look more appealing. That would make it more appealing. Applicant: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I hadn't really thought about that on the side because we hadn't got to the engineering design, but we would consider that as part of the design, I guess, is basically what I'm saying. I don't want to say I can put it there and then something comes up in the design and says, well, no. You can't because itviolates some specific code ordinance or something. But I hear where you're coming from on that side. I will tell you, I don't like the way it is now because we try to keep that place really neat, and I don't know why. There's more trash just thrown out on my lot than I think anywhere in Dunn for whatever reason. I don't know if it's coming from the gas station or what, so we're concentrating. But then the people that pull out of there, they're constantly driving over my lot, making a muddy mess. Like so I would intend that when we do something, we would stop that somehow. I don't know if building another building on the corner may stop that itself. They're coming out of that gas station parking lot, they're driving all over my lot, and it makes it look like a mess. City Attorney Pope: So, Council, at this time, if there are any conditions that you would like to place upon the use of the land by the applicant, they must be agreed to by the applicant, and it must be voluntary. At this time, he has agreed to agree if you approve the Special Use Permit to two (2) conditions. #1 is that there would be a property owner association for maintenance of the townhomes, And #2 is that if a dumpster was utilized, that it would be contained in an enclosed area. Are there any other conditions that the Council would like to ask the applicant to consider as a part of potential Special Use Permit. Council Member Tart: I'll tell you I just wanted to clarify something. I mean, I'm looking at the layout, and each house is coming out to Clinton. Is that Correct? City Attorney Pope: No. I think that's just a conceptual visualization. That's not a site plan as to how that would work, but I'll defer to the applicant. Applicant: That's correct. Actually, I kind of put those pictures thereto give a perspective of the buffer and stuff that was around. it when you looked at it from Clinton just here at the end. But that's no actual final site plan design. Council Member Tart: I'm just wondering. Applicant: Because I honestly so I'll be clear with you. Where it looks like there's that driveway that looks down like a strip mall in the front, I do not like that. Council Member Tart: I was just wondering howyou would get to Cole Street Applicant: Yeah. Council Member Tart: With this layout. 128 Applicant: No. No. No. No. No. Okay. I actually have another 1 where it actually showed some vegetarian buffer along the front of Clinton Street, and then you had, like, a driveway coming off Cole Street. So yeah. Theywould not be driveways like that coming on the front. Mayor Pro Tern Gaulden: Do you have that layout? Because this layout was very confusing. Council Member Hargis: I don't know how we can approve something that we're sent a picture. If you're saying, you know, well, I hadn't thought about that. Well, maybe I will. Well, maybe this would be okay. Well, maybe that's not. And then this picture is not exactly so. It's different. I don't know how we can approve a Special Use Permit, not knowing what it is exactly that you want.to do. Applicant: Yeah. I guess that's really the question. When talking to the Planning Board, like, how far do you go with colors of the walls? Is it brick? Is it vinyl siding? How far do you go before this stage of the valuation as far as the usage of it? I'm totally fine with the couple conditions that were put forward. City Attorney Pope: So, at this time, we're just either asking him questions or asking him any further conditions that you would like for ,him to consider as a part of your if you were to approve the special use permit. Are there any other questions for mister Dunn? Council Member McNeil: Yes. Materials. I think I saw that here somewhere. What type of materials would you be using for these? Siding? Applicant: We haven't gotten it out far into.the actual building design of the architecture of the building itself yet. Council Member McNeil: Okay. Yeah. Those are all things we need to consider though. City Attorney Pope: Any other questions for Mr. Dunn? Are there any other conditions other than the two (2) that he has already agreed to accept that you would like to ask him to consider as a part of your consideration of the Special Use Permit? At this time, Mr. Mayor, it'd be appropriate to entertain a motion to close the Quasi-judicial hearing. Council Member Sills: So, moved. Council Member Bradham: Second. Mayor Elmore: Motion by Council Member Sills, seconded by Council Member Bradham. All in favor say aye. Aye Mayor Elmore: Any opposed? (None) Motion carries. City Attorney Pope: Now, Council, you will find on the first page of your agenda package, there are six (6) individual Findings of Fact. You must consider each of them individually. You will make a motion to either find that that fact has been found or has not been found based on evidence and testimonythat was presented during the hearing. Mayor Elmore: Can I ask a question? City Attorney Pope: Yes, sir. Mayor Elmore: So, is a Special Use Permit applied to the applicant only or does that follow the property to the property itself? City Attorney Pope: It follows the property. So, the first Finding of Fact that you must consider is whether it has been met is that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to.the plan as submitted and approved. 12s So, you will need to either make a motion that the use will not materially endanger or a motion that the use will materially endanger, etcetera, as stated in your package. Council Member Sills: Well, Tilghman, I don't think we have a plan. We've got some conceptual drawings, but we don't have a plan. Now I don't think the conceptual drawings would materially endanger public safety, but we don't have a plan. So if that's so I would motion that it will materially endanger public safety. Would that be the motion? . City Attorney Pope: If that's what you think the evidence and testimony supports, then that can be your motion. ' Mayor Elmore: So, we'll be addressing all six (6) of these items individually? City Attorney Pope: That is correct. We'll have individual motions on each one. Mayor Elmore: So, I guess as you go through this, you need to determine if it will or will not materially endanger the property or public health and safety. And that's what that particular motion needs to have a finding of whether it will or will not. Council Member Sills: Well, I mean, conceptually, don't think it would endanger, but I wish there was a plan. So, we can't have it both ways, right? So, we just got to make the motion that it will or will not materially endanger public safety. Is that correct? City Attorney Pope: You have to make a motion one way orthe other. Yes. Council Member Sills: Alright. Well then, I move that the #1 Findings of Facts, the use will not materially endanger public health or safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted or approved. Mayor Pro Tern Gaulden: Second. Mayor Elmore: Motion by Council Member Sills, second by Mayor Pro Tem Gaulden. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion that it will not materially endanger the property say aye. . Aye. Mayor Elmore: Any opposed? The motion carries on that in the affirmative. City Attorney Pope: The 2nd criteria is that the use meets all required standards of the ordinance. Council Member Bradham: Mr. Mayor, 1 feel like on point two (2), that they've done the homework on logistics of it. I will approve number two (2). City Attorney Pope: That'd be a motion to approve? Council Member Bradham: Motion to approve. Yes. City Attorney Pope: That use meets all ordinance standards of this ordinance. Mayor Elmore: Motion by David that it does meet the required standards. Is there a second? Council Member Tart: Second. Mayor Elmore: Second by Billy. Any discussion on that one. So, all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Mayor Elmore: Any opposed? Okay. That one is approved in the affirmative. City Attorney Pope: The 31d criteria is that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Council Member McNeil: I would deny that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting properties. City Attorney Pope: Just to clarify, that would be your motion that the use will substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property? 130 i Council Member McNeil: Yes. Mayor Elmore: Motion by Council MemberMcNeilthat it will substantially injure the value of adjoining and abutting properties. Motion by Council Member McNeil. Is there a second on that motion? Council Member Sills: Second. Mayor Elmore: Second by Council Member Sills. Any discussion among the board? Council Member Sills: I think about appraisals and things, it might be hard to quantify this, but it does seem odd that there would be townhouse complex in an existing neighborhood that's got single-family homes. And I think that it would be uncharacteristic where we've allowed that to happen. Where we have put townhouses in mixed use development and homes on small lots and things that's been on the outskirts of town. We've protected existing neighborhoods. Mayor Elmore: Any further discussion on this? So, a motion has been made and seconded that it will substantially injure the value of adjoining and abutting properties. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Mayor Elmore: Any opposed? The motion carries. That it will not I mean, that it will injure the value. City Attorney Pope: The 411 criteria is adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, sanitation, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. Council Member McNeil: I make a motion that adequate utilities access roads, especially drainage, sanitation, and other necessary facilities will not be provided. So, for me, there's no storm water drainage. Mayor Elmore: There's a motion by Council Member McNeil that these particular items have not been met or being provided at this process. Council Member Sills: Second. Mayor Elmore: Second by Council Member Sills. Any discussion? Council Member Sills: I think we all know how I feel about stormwater. And historically speaking, through the years on the board, the impervious surface draining on the Cole or Clinton, I think presents a problem. And while certainly engineered plans would have been drawn up and things. It would be nice to have been comforted by some more knowledge of what storm water would happen in that area. Mayor Elmore: Okay. So, there is a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion on this matter? All in favor of the motion that these items have not been met or provided, say aye. Aye. Mayor Elmore: Any opposed? Council Member Bradham: No. Mayor Elmore: Okay. So.let the record show that Mr. Bradham voted against that particular motion. City Attorney Pope: The 511 finding is that the establishment of the proposed use shall not impede the orderly development and improvement of surrounding property. Council Member Hargis: I don't think I would saythat it does not. It does not It does impede the development, the orderly development of the surrounding propertysince all the other surrounding properties are single family residence. I think it does impede that area. It's not conducive to that community. Council Member Sills: Second. 131 Mayor Elmore: A motion by Council Member Hargis, seconded by Council Member Sills. And the motion as I understand it is that this will impede orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Is that correct? Was that your motion? Okay. Are there any questions or comments on that? So, all in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Mayor Elmore Any opposed? The motion carries in the affirmative that it will impede orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. City Attorney Pope: And the 611 finding is that the requested use will be in conformity with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plans. Council Member Sills: Mr. Mayor, I move that the requested use will not be in conformity with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Council Member McNeil: Second Mayor Elmore: Motion by Council Member Sills, second by Council Member McNeil that it will not be in conformity with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Any discussion? Council Member Sills: Mr. Dunn, again, when we talk about gateways, what does it mean to be a gateway in the town similarto our other agenda item in the evening? What do we want? What do we need for our gateways in the town? And again, when you drive into neighboring towns around us in Harnett County and neighboring counties, it just seems odd what is happening, and it does not look conducive or inviting, in my opinion. Mayor Pro Tem Gaulden: I just want to piggyback off of what he said. I do believe that he had. good intentions of building up that area, but there's that but. There are single family homes. If it was something else, I'm not opposed to growth, I'm not opposed to new things, something looking different, I'm not opposed to that. But the number of townhomes that could possibly go there on that small acre. It's not even an acre. That is concerning to me. I know he has good intentions forthe City of Dunn even being a business owner, but you have to look at the neighbors that are around, homeowners that are there, have been there. I know change is good, but at the same time, I just feel like it needs to be if we had an idea of, like, how many, if it was smaller, if it was homes, that would be different for me. So, I have to agree with Wes that it's just not right there on, that corner that I feel like it should be any number of townhomes there More than what I thought was going to be there. Mayor Elmore: So, any other comments? Okay. The motion was made that it will not be in conformity with the city's adoptive comprehensive plans. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Mayor Elmore: Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries that it will not be in conformity. City Attorney Pope: Now based on the findings of fact, it would be appropriate motion to deny because you have to find all of the findings in the affirmative. The motion as stated in yourpackage. Council Member Sills: Mr. Mayor, I approve a motion to deny, which I circled and still said approve. Mister Mayor, I move to deny the Special Use Permit, SUP-26-01, to construct townhomes as a Special Use of three (3) parcels. The pins listed in our packet zoned RM residential multifamily as presented. Mayor Pro Tern Gaulden: Second Mayor Elmore: Motion by Council Member Sills, second by Mayor Pro Tern Gaulden to deny the Special Use Permit SUP-26-01 to construct townhomes as a Special Use Permit of three (3) parcels, PINS being 1516-89-4031.000, 1516-89-4078.000, and 1516- 89-5125.000. Any other questions? 132 S Council Member Sills: Mr. Mayor, before we vote, [just wanted to say for the record and for Mr. Dunn, I appreciate him as a businessman. I've shopped at his establishment, recommended friends from different parts of the county to come to his establishment instead of driving to Fuquay or somewhere in Fayetteville to get their hunting supplies and equipment. But again, it goes back to protecting existing neighborhoods and what do we want as our gateways into town. And that's again as a property owner myself, what would I want in mywards and what my neighbors do not want. And I think this Council has been very consistent in supporting property owners of existing neighborhoods to keep those neighborhoods whole and keep them as is. Again, voting down unanimously things of muti- family units, duplexes, triplexes in existing neighborhoods. And I hope that the Council will continue to do that, even when I'm off in the years to come. Council Member McNeil: I would also like to say the same. I am all for growth, also. But I would just like business owners, contractors, whoever to be considerate of our communities. We do want to keep them whole. We want to keep them family like. There is so much land that can be used in Dunn for townhomes and those types of things, but when it comes to our single family homes, we would like to see our communities stay pretty much the way that they are. Because, I mean if you look around and where certain people live, you wouldn't want these things coming into your community either. Mayor Elmore: Any other comments? Okay. There's a motion and a second to deny this request. So, I'll call forthe vote on that. All in favor for denying say aye. Council: Aye. Mayor Elmore: Any opposed? (None) All in favor to deny. Motion unanimously approved to deny. Council Member Hargis: Before we go to the next item, I would like to say something to Rodney. I would like to say that you can bring this back, but I don't think there's enough information for us to make an intelligent decision tonight because there were so many things that, well, I don't know about this, and I don't know about that. If you're asking for Special Use Permit, it's gotto be very specific. And wheneveryou have questions and you don't know and whatever, there are many different layouts of things that would probably go. Applicant: But so just for transparency. When I went, it was on residential. Council Member Hargis: I can't hear you, buddy. I'm deaf as a doorknob. Applicant: So, when I went, it was zoned residential multifamily. I -paid 750 dollars to come here. Do you guys tell me whether it would go or not versus being willing to spend, you know, your thousands of dollars on all of those details for you to, for me to be told no again. So just as a property owner, that's kind of hard. Council Member Hargis: I'm not sure how that works. I'd have to ask Justin that. Would he be able to apply this to a future request in the future? I don't know. City Manager: It's normal for each application that comes in. Applicant: It's hard for me because I hear it as, like, neighbors on one side, but when you look at 50, it's like there's, I didn't hear anything about the 50 percent adjacent property that's commercial. Council Member Hargis: I honestly would like to request that maybe his application, if he does reapply because I don't think he was given good advice. I think that whenever he knows he's coming up here for a Special Use Permit our people should be able to tell him, hey, you're going to have this buttoned up. It's going to have to be pretty tight. And, I don't think we've done that. And, I think that's an injustice. I'll talkto Justin about that in the next week or so. Deputy Finance Director Appointment Finance Director Cary McNallan requested authorization to create a Deputy Finance Director position and promote Senior AccountantAlexa Ablingto the role. He explained that the Local Government Commission requires only Finance Directors, Deputy Finance 133 Directors, or Assistant Finance Directors to sign contracts and conduct pre -audits to ensure fund availability. Creating this position would provide necessary backup and succession planningfor the Finance Department. Motion by Council Member McNeil, second by Mayor Pro Tem Gaulden to approve the Resolution AppointingAlexa Abling to the position of Deputy Finance Director. A copyof the Resolution AppointingAlexe Abling to the position of Deputy Finance Director (R2026-1 1) is incorporated into these minutes as Attachment#4. REPORTS & UPDATES City Manager's Report ComrnunityAppearance Committee City Manager Hembree reported meeting with the Community Appearance Committee, findingthem engaged and readyto undertake projects including landscaping at City Hall, an Adapt -A -Street program, and organizing the Citywide Pickup Day and Litter Sweep. He recommended updating the committee structure to reduce membership from 11 to 7 members and having all members appointed by Council ratherthan havingsome appointed by external organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and Garden Club. Council members supported these recommendations and emphasized the importance of consistent staff engagement with the committee. Railroad Building City Manager Hembree provided an update on paintingthe Railroad building, explainingthat the roof must be repaired before painting to avoid damage during roof installation. Staff are currently obtaining quotes for roof replacement. Commercial Waste Containers City Manager Hembree reported that Code Enforcement had completed a comprehensive inventory of commercial dumpsters citywide, finding widespread non-compliance with LIDO screening requirements. He noted the City itself has two (2) unscreened dumpsters and committed to voluntary compliance efforts before formal enforcement. Council Member Hargis suggested providing financial incentives to businesses for compliance, given -the significant costs involved and the City's lack of previous enforcement. Residential Waste Containers City Manager Hembree explained that the City sent reminder letters about removing waste containers within 24 hours of collection, with targeted neighborhoods showing higher non- compliance rates. Staff plans to use door flyers in problem areas, continuing voluntary compliance efforts before formal enforcement. Mr. Hembree also addressed major ongoing issues with yard waste contamination, where residents put regular trash in yard waste containers. This creates significant problems at the Landfill, requiring weekly staff intervention to separate materials. The situation worsened when the landfill recently required immediate on -site separation during dumping, disrupting City operations. Public Works Director Dwayne Williams described finding dead animals, needles, and household appliances mixed with yard waste, creating safety hazards for staff. Council members expressed strong concerns about the yard waste program, with Council Member Sills noting his longstanding opposition to the containers and the need for better alternatives. The Council requested recommendations for addressing this issue atthe nextwork session, including potentially opting out of the yard waste collection service entirely. Financial Report Finance Director McNallan reported February financial results showing Cash & Investments of $10.1 million compared to $10.5 million the previous year, with $5.6 million designated for East Side Pump Station construction. Property Tax Collections reached 91 percent of the Levy, Sales Tax receipts exceeded the previous year by $32,000, and Building Permit Fees collected $47,000 in February, bringing year-to-date collections to 85 percent of budget. Departmental Reports $PLoject Up —dates Code Enforcement 134 Code Enforcement Officer Alan Canady presented before -and -after photos of successful compliance cases, including parking lot repairs at 600 East Cumberland Street and debris removal at 410 South Elm Street. He reported a 99 percent compliance rate, significantly higherthan the typical60-75 percent rate in other municipalities, creditingthe collaborative approach with property owners. Paving Project City Manager Hembree reported that the paving contractor began work, focusing on patching before moving to mill and resurfacing operations. The contractor requested permission to work Saturdays, which was approved. Street selection is based on condition rather than the order of work, with the contractor's mobilization schedule determining the sequence. Regular updates will be provided to the public through the website and on social media. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Elmore announced that • City offices will be closed on Friday, April 3rd for Good Friday. • The next Work Session is scheduled for Tuesday, April 14th at 6:30 PM • The next Regular Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 28th at 6:30 PM. He encouraged public participation in upcoming board and committee appointments, with applications available on the city website. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, there was a motion by Council Member Sills and second by Mayor Pro Tern Gaulden to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. - r.—Z im P Elmore, Jr. Mpori, n,, Attest: ���GITY ... uho ikft� - f GORPO�r Melissa R. Matti = Z' SEAL O '. City Clerk 9T ' .......Q 'yICAROV,, ,�