Tag Archives: rezoning

Nottinghill on Cat Creek by Mr. Nijem and discussion @ LCC 12 July 2011

Speaking for the Nottinghill rezoning request on Cat Creek Road, Bill Nijem said it was nothing like Glen Laurel. Nothing like repudiating your work of last year….

Commissioner Richard Raines thanked Nijem for sitting down with the neighbors.

As David Rodock wrote in the VDT the next day, Citizens speak against Cat Creek crowding: Disapprove of the proposal to build residential areas

Bill Nijem, representative of the applicant, brought forward information demonstrating his client’s willingness to work with neighbors, in that lot sizes were increased by 20 percent and that the average lot size would range from a minimum of 12,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Nijem also reminded commissioners that the applicant was willing to install any necessary buffers or fences to prevent children from playing in the neighboring fields and would have water and sewer installed with his own financial resources.
Carolyn Selby reminds me that Mr. Nijem didn’t say Continue reading →

Not clear houses are more important than agriculture —John S. Quarterman @ LCC 12 July 2011

If somebody puts a subdivision next to your field, beware of trash, and the same if you buy a lot in it. For that matter, why do we need more houses?

Some of what I said:

To expand a little bit on that subdivision next to our west field, one of the builders continued to push trash into our field until I had to sue him for trespass in Superior Court to get him to stop.
I meant to say in Magistrate’s Court.
I called code enforcement multiple times and they did nothing to help stop it. Now that there’s a new fire chief perhaps things are better, but anybody who’s got a field nearby might want to watch for that.

Anyone who hopes to buy houses in the subdivision might want to watch to see if there are any dumpsters in there, because the subdivision near us, the trash was buried in the yards; you can ask anyone who owns one of those lots.

As far as needing houses for Moody, there are usually ten houses for sale in that subdivision, and roughtly 10 or 15 more that are for rent. So it’s not clear we actually need more houses.

As far as lot size, this is the same issue as came up last year with Glen Laurel on Old Pine Road. … The room was filled with people for the same reasons that you’re hearing now. At that time the commission decided to say ….

You can see for yourself what happened in May of last year: Continue reading →

Sprawl is not fiscally prudent —Gretchen Quarterman @ LCC 12 July 2011

David Rodock wrote in the VDT 13 July 2011, Citizens speak against Cat Creek crowding:
Gretchen Quarterman also spoke against the proposition, citing that extending residential areas further out into undeveloped Lowndes County would create greater strain on an already tight fiscal operating budget.
She referred to a report County Planner Jason Davenport commissioned from Prof. Jeffrey H. Dorfman of UGA, Local Government Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Lowndes County, December 2007, in which he recommended development close in to existing services for the most benefit to all parties. As Prof. Dorfman has said,
“Local governments must ensure balanced growth, as sprawling residential growth is a certain ticket to fiscal ruin*
* Or at least big tax increases.”
He noted
“The same growth done more densely and contiguously saves both money, farmland, and provides environmental amenities.”
Prof. Dorfman has even quantified national averages for Continue reading →

Traffic on Cat Creek Road at Nottinghill —Thomas E. Stalvey Jr. @ LCC 12 July 2011

Schoolchildren, safety, and farmland: three topics that often seem forgotten in discussions of development. Opposing the proposed rezoning for Notthinghill, neighbor Thomas E. Stalvey Jr. noted that traffic on Cat Creek Road is already a problem, and adding a subdivision would make it worse. He noted that it’s traffic routed down Cat Creek to Moody that accounts for a lot of it. He said school children stood out on the road and they were already in danger.
“If we put 49 more houses out there, it’s just going to up the risk.”

He explicitly linked road widening to development: Continue reading →

Now they change their minds, so we’ve got a right to change our minds —Calvin Marshall @ LCC 12 July 2011

Somebody finally called a developer’s bluff! Answering Commissioners’ questions about his opposition to rezoning for Nottinghill on Cat Creek Road, Calvin Marshall did what I’ve never seen anyone do before in opposing a subdivision: he upped the ante.

Commissioner Richard Raines said he would require Nottinghill lots to have:

“Not perhaps, but a fence around the edge of the property. … Need to make sure that bicycles and fourwheelers, that children are not playing in a field that is used to grow crops.”
Seems fair, except that he seemed to be talking about each individual eventual property owner having to put up a fence, and I can tell you by experience that that won’t happen without the neighboring landowner personally insisting to each lot owner. Unless the Commission insists that county code enforcement actually enforce such a condition, which would be a good thing for a change.

Then Commissioner Raines asked Calvin Marshall:

“Is it still your position that 12-15,000 square foot lots are OK?”
Calvin Marshall answered: Continue reading →

What are they going to put for a buffer for farms at Nottinghill —Calvin Marshall @ LCC 12 July 2011

Neighboring landowner demolishes developers’ arguments; explains agriculture to Lowndes County Comission.

Neighboring landowner Calvin Marshall, speaking against rezoning for REZ-2011-10 Nottinghill, said neighbors,

“We’re not interested in a Bluepool, We’re not interested in a Chatham Place. And we’re certainly not interested in what they built out on Val Del Road. We’ve also looked at what they’ve done with Old Pine, and we’re definitely not interested in that, either. Too small lots, small homes.”
That last one is presumably Glen Laurel, which had a roomful of neighbors opposing it last year.

Calvin Marshall asked for the Commissioners to deny the Nottinghill rezoning request.

He also asked:

“The other thing that we asked the developer … what you going to do about the neighbors that have got a farm on each side? What kind of buffer are you going to put there?
…
We farm that land, we grow crops, we run cows, we run goats, we run hogs, and we’re going to continue to do that.
…
We don’t have an answer as to what they’re going to do for a buffer.”

Calvin Marshall continued with the economic argument:

“There’s three or four generations of property owners in this room tonight. These people go back for three or four generations. And these people have worked hard.
Continue reading →

Lowndes County could stop biomass plant

VDT is not quite right when it says Only city can stop biomass. The Lowndes County Commission could do it.

According to Ashley Paulk, a few months ago VLCIA approached the Lowndes County government, asking them to ask VLCIA not to extend Sterling Planet’s contract for the biomass plant. Chairman Paulk refused to accept that hot potato and instead laudably told the community what was going on. Yet there was a bit of a good idea in what VLCIA was asking. Lowndes County could pass an ordinance such as VDT is suggesting banning the incineration of human feces.

Remember, Lowndes County rezoned the land for the plant. It’s time to review that rezoning to see if in light of new information it should be rescinded. According to the VDT, Wiregrass Power LLC supplied a fake timeline, so it wuld not be interesting to know what else they said wasn’t true?

For that matter, wasn’t the rezoning to build a certain biomass plant according to a certain plan which has no expired? Maybe the rezoning is already null and void and the Commission just needs to declare it so.

Short of that, the Lowndes County Commission could demand transparency from VLCIA:

Continue reading →

VDT says VLCIA illegally made up a document

Today’s editorial in the VDT is Another Industrial Authority misstep refers to the VDT article and editorial of Sunday, and continues:
The reporter who conducted the interview with Industrial Authority Project Manager Allen Ricketts has been subsequently repeatedly contacted by Ricketts for what he deems “false reporting.” According to Ricketts, the timeline was never official and was only something the Industrial Authority threw together to appease the Times when given an official Open Records Request. Ricketts is apparently unaware that legally he cannot produce a document that does not exist to comply with said request. If he knowingly did so, as he now claims, that is a clear violation of the Open Records Act.
Presumably that would be the “Project Critical Path time-line is attached” that wasn’t actually attached to documents returned for an open records request of 17 February 2011. Hm, since VLCIA did supply such a document to the VDT, presumably it is now a VLCIA document subject to open records request, even though it was not what VLCIA told VDT it was.

Back to the VDT editorial: Continue reading →

Glen Laurel (Old Pine Road) infrastructure at County Commission work session

That’s one thing on the 8:30 AM agenda for this morning. Work sessions are where most discussion among the commissioners usually occurs. The actual vote will be in tomorrow’s (11 Jan) 5:30 PM regular session.

Background on the contentious rezoning for the Glen Laurel subdivision is in the continuing series in this blog.

-jsq

Unanswered Concerns about the Biomass Plant

I’m quoting myself here, responding to Brad Lofton’s letter of 19 Sepember 2010.

-jsq

From: “John S. Quarterman”
To: <blofton@industrialauthority.com>, Leigh Touchton
Cc: [VDT and several elected officials; list available upon request]
Subject: Re: Brad Lofton, Executive Director Industrial Authority, doesn’t want his correpondence in the Valdosta Daily Times
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:08:17 -0400

Brad Lofton,

Leigh Touchton has forwarded me copies of the correspondence between you on behalf of the Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority (VLCIA) with her and the VDT.

I must say I don’t agree with your assertion that:

“The vast majority of her concerns for our project would have been answered two years ago if she had come to any of our forums…”
Here are some examples of unanswered concerns.

Continue reading →