Tag Archives: Traffic

No mold or unpaid contractors this time for Moody Housing @ GLPC 2013-07-29

Unlike Moody AFB’s last go at privatizing housing, no mold or unpaid contractors this time, or so we’re told. But not so solid assurances that local contractors will be used. And what if this new thing turns into something radically different like Nelson Hill did only a short way up Val Del? GLPC Voting

Speaking for that proposed privatized Moody housing on Val Del Road, Lawyer Tom Kurrie said this was “an opportunity for our community”. He spelled out that the proposal was “90 homes for off-base houses, for enlisted personnel, non-commissioned officers, and officers”, with gates. He went on about Balfour Beatty‘s experience in building such housing, and their option to build Phase II, although at the moment they’re only requesting Phase I. He said “the unfortunate issue that took place with the prior development” would not occur with this one.

I can guess he’s referring to the mold issue, Beth Mahoney detailed in Little Rock Military Families Examiner 6 April 2009.

Or since he lauded Balfour Beatty’s credit rating, maybe he was referring to the nonpayment of subcontractors, as Kari L. Sands wrote for VDT, 4 March 2007, Military housing woes: Non-payment forces work on military housing project to stop.

Preferred Builders and Renovators, LLC., the Home Builders Association of South Georgia and CMS/ Dumpster Co. are among those affected. Subcontractors are alleging that Continue reading →

Gated Moody housing on Val Del Road, REZ-2013-09 @ GLPC 2013-07-29

Only 81 of 396 proposed units have been built at current Moody Family Housing on Roberts Road. Why should we build more on Val Del Road?

At the 29 July 2013 Greater Lowndes Planning Commission meeting, County Planner Jason Davenport said that in addition to the initial materials for GLPC, he’d provided an update about Magnolia Grove, which was Phase I of Moody Family Housing. The real reason for the rezoning wasn’t stated in the initial materials given to GLPC. In the materials obtained through open records request, we can see that the GLPC agenda item contained the boilerplate “The general motivation in this case appears to be so that the subject property can be developed at a greater residential density.” In the update it’s assumed that the real reason is housing for Moody personnel, since Magnolia Grove is the existing Moody housing off of Roberts Road. Which isn’t even built out yet, as you can see in this map from the county Tax Commissioners, so why does Moody need more housing?

Lots of interesting back history in that July 29th GLPC Lowndes County Rezoning Update – 2, to which I’ve added Continue reading →

TRC and GLPC recommended subdivision that doesn’t improve traffic or safety, REZ-2013-09

What is so important about yet another subdivision of 360,910 square feet in 173 houses when we have a glut of houses that the TRC unanimously recommended it despite significant defects and omissions? According to Technical Review Committee (TRC) analysis, REZ-2013-09 Moody Family will not lessen congestion in the streets or secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers. TRC also said the application didn’t meet ULDC standards and in somewhat tortured language: “although not a proposed condition, it should be noted on this request that a future traffic study will be required.” Why not require these things before even sending the application to the Planning Commission?

In email to the Greater Lowndes Planning Commissioners of 23 July 2013, forwarded to the applicants 29 July 2013, July 29th GLPC Lowndes County Rezoning Materials,

2) REZ-2013-09 Moody Family, 0072 191, Val Del Rd, 64.92 ac., 2 lots, R-1 to Residential PD, County Utilities

a) The TRC recommended approval of the request unanimously.

b) Additionally, although not a proposed condition, it should be noted on this request that a future traffic study will be required. Acceleration lanes/Deceleration lanes and/or a dedicated left turn lane may be required.

Rumor has it that this development is being pushed not by Moody AFB, rather by Continue reading →

Dollar General or not? @ LCC 2012-12-10

Is Naylor maybe going to get a Dollar General or something else, if the unnamed applicant or applicants get their rezoning with or without conditions? None of that is clear from yesterday morning’s Lowndes County Commission Work Session for agenda item 7.c. REZ-2012-19 Naylor Dollar General, US Hwy 84 East, E-A to C-G, Well & Septic, ~2 acres.

County Planner Jason Davenport said:

The applicants have mentioned trying to do a Dollar General at this site. We believe that’s what they’re going to do, but however whatever uses are allowed in C-G would of course be allowed if it is approved without any conditions.

He said they had the recommendations from the TRC and the Planning Commission, but he didn’t say what they were. The Planning Commission recommended for, apparently with the understanding that it was for a Dollar General. Davenport said there had been no further input since the Planning Commission meeting.

The Commission could have staff submit written reports that go in the agenda and minutes, like the Library Board does, and then put those online as PDF or HTML linked to an HTML agenda, like Glynn County and Richmond County do, and we wouldn’t have to guess the names of applicants or the details of rezoning requests.

Here’s the video:

Dollar General or not?
Work Session, Lowndes County Commission (LCC),
Video by Gretchen Quarterman for Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE),
Valdosta, Lowndes County, Georgia, 10 December 2012.

-jsq

Lowndes County’s 2007 and 2012 favors for the same developer

According to the Lowndes County Commission’s minutes, the developer for whom the Commission now proposes to change the zoning code back in 2007 got $130,000 in road construction labor from the Commission.

In the 26 June 2007 Lowndes County Commission Regular Session Minutes:

County Engineer, Mike Fletcher, presented an item that was brought to the Commission during the previous work session regarding the paving of Davidson Road. Further, Mr. Clint Joyner was in the process of building a previously approved development that was being affected by an unforeseen Department of Transportation requirement regarding a costly intersection improvement. Mr. Fletcher further stated that Mr. Joyner was required to pave a portion of Davidson Road; however, due to the intersection cost he was offering to purchase the materials for the funding of the entire road, if the county would provide the road construction labor at a cost of approximately $130,000.00. Commissioner Lee made a motion to approve the request, Vice Chairman Carter and Commissioner Roberts offered a second. Motion carried.

Somebody help me here, is not that the same Clint Joyner back in 2007 getting a $130,000 subsidy from the County Commission who last month got invited to talk to the Commission in a Work Session with nobody else invited to speak? The same one for whom the same Commission is now proposing to change the zoning code? For another development on the same Davidson Road? A development the Chamber and Moody and the Planning Commission are all opposing, while the VDT channels Ashley Paulk in promoting it?

What is it about this Clint Joyner or Joyner Realty or Davidson Road that the County Commission should favor him or them so? It can’t be the individual Commissioners: not a one of them is the same now from 2007. What is the same then and now?

Maybe we should find out before the Commission grants any more favors.

-jsq

Chamber opposes zoning code change for developer near Moody

Apparently it’s the Chamber and Moody and the Planning Commission Red arrows on MAZ and the TRC all against Ashley Paulk on the Moody rezoning-and-zoning-code case, with the VDT sidling towards Paulk. The VDT claimed Lowndes County Chairman stated something that’s not true according to the agenda and LAKE’s videos of the recent Planning Commission meeting. And the VDT buried opposition by the Chamber of Commerce’s relevant committee at the end of its article.

Jason Schaefer wrote for the VDT today, County disagrees with proposed zoning amendment, Paulk: Military intervention could prevent development near base, and the caption of the picture on the right says:

The Greater Lowndes Planning Commission proposed a text amendment to the Unified Land Development Code in November that would reduce lot density restrictions from 2.5 acres to one acre, allowing landowners within the Moody Activity Zoning (MAZ) district “more flexibility” to parcel off their land holdings, Paulk said.

The Planning Commission’s own agenda says TEX-2012-02 was proposed by “Lowndes County Board of Commissioners”. And the Planning Commission voted to recommend against approving that text amendment to the ULDC. According to Planning Commissioner John Page, that vote was following the recommendation of the Technical Review Committee (TRC), which consists of staff of Lowndes County and the City of Valdosta. Page is also an incoming Lowndes County Commissioner, to take office next month. So either Paulk said something he as the Chairman of the Lowndes County Commission should know not to be true, or the VDT wrote erroneously.

The VDT also seemed to indicate that Paulk was speaking for Continue reading →

Developer didn’t get his way: change the zoning code! @ GLPC 2012-11-26

A developer didn’t get his way at the Lowndes County Commission last month, so now the county is proposing to change the zoning code for him! To change zoning right next to Moody Air Force Base, the largest employer in this area. A change opposed by Moody because of flight safety and safety of property, and “the longterm viability of Moody Air Force Base.” A change that would set a precedent for further sprawl, as Moody indicated indirectly when the related rezoning first came before the Planning Commission. Apparently a developer can get whatever he wants around here, no matter how much it threatens the livelihoods or well-being of the rest of the citizens. Does that seem right to you? To their credit, the Planning Commission at its 26 November 2012 meeting unanimously voted against this TEX-2012-02 just as they did the rezoning case REZ-2012-17 last month. Both will be decided by the Lowndes County Commission at its 11 December 2012 meeting.

4. TEX-2012-02

Lowndes County Board of Commissioners
A proposed text amendment to the Unified Land Development Code as it pertains to Single Family residential Density and Minimum Lot Area within the MAZ (Moody Activity Zone)

County Planner Jason Davenport introduced this item.

TEX-2012-02 ULDC changes Ultimately at the end of the day this text amendment is a request to change the minimum lot sizes allowed and the minimum residential densities allowed in a MAZ-3 zoning district. We have those changes highlighted on the screen but they have also been highlighted in the packet…. At the end of the day that is what has happened.

Well, yes, at the end of that day. At the end of many future days this zoning code amendment if approved will be used as a precedent for more sprawl right next to Moody Air Force Base, which is by far the biggest employer in this area. The packet he referred to is not available to the public. The changes he mentioned are not on his Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) web page. A view of them as seen from the back of the room is shown on the right here. Can you read them?

Moody insert in ULDC Map The ULDC map linked on that page includes the Moody Area insert map shown here on the right.

Davenport added that he had received one open records request and a response from Moody. Plus state law requires 30 days for Moody to respond and it had been 31 days. Then he walked through some history using pages in Commissioners’ packets that we the taxpayers, voters, and residents of Lowndes County can’t see.

Davenport specifically tied this text amendment to a tabled zoning case:

Continue reading →

Planning Commission recommends nineteenth Dollar General @ GLPC 2012-11-26

The Planning Commission 26 November 2012 ignored a Naylor citizen’s questions about a market survey, traffic, trees, peace and quiet, rural living, and sprawl and unanimously recommended a rezoning request for the eighteenth Dollar General in the area. They did this for a developer who doesn’t live in Lowndes County, and who didn’t even have her name revealed by the Planning Commission, even though anyone who spoke against had to show up in person and state name and address. All this for a location that wasn’t specified in the agenda. Does this seem right to you?

Dr. Bobbie Robinson 3. REZ-2012-19 Robinson Milltown Properties, LLC

US Highway 84 East, Naylor, Georgia
Request to rezone 2 acres from E-A (Estate Agriculture) to C-G (General Commercial)

It’s for a Dollar General. County Planner Jason Davenport said nobody had called in. The agenda doesn’t say which parcel is the subject, and the County Planner didn’t specify. Robinson Miltown Properties map Judging by the map displayed on the screen, it’s the southeast corner of parcel number 0250 003, 101.91 acres owned by Robinson Milltown Properties LLC of 2605 Hall Ave., Tifton, GA 31794. Dr. Bobbie Robinson of ABAC According to the Georgia Secretary of State, that LLC’s agent is Bobbie Ann Robinson of 2605 Hall Avenue, Tifton, GA 31794. I’m told she is the Dr. Bobbie Robinson Professor of English and Dean, School of Liberal Arts at ABAC in Tifton. It’s curious how anybody speaking in opposition had to show up in person and state their name and address, but she the developer didn’t have to do any of those things.

Clayton Milligan of Lovell Engineering Clayton Milligan of Lovell Engineering spoke for, merely saying he offered to answer questions. Commissioners asked him no questions.

Matthew Richard of 5569 Upper Grand Bay Road spoke against.

Continue reading →

T-SPLOST losing statewide, but not in Region 11

It sounds like good news for T-SPLOST opponents, until you look at the details.

Eve Chen wrote for 11Alive yesterday, 11Alive Poll | T-SPLOST would not pass today

Among likely voters surveyed by SurveyUSA for 11Alive News, across the state, 48% said they would vote against T-SPLOST and 36% said they would vote for it if the primary were today; 16% were still undecided. The margin of error was 3.4%.

But look at the details. The big No regions are Atlanta metro and northwards (see Question 1). In our Region 11 it’s Yes 41%, No 33%, Not Certain 26% so there’s work to be done. Do we want to end up stuck with projects we don’t need after Atlanta votes down its region in a referendum that was designed to pass in Atlanta?

My favorite is question 6:

How likely is it that the state government would properly handle the funds if the transportation tax increase is passed?

In region 11, Very 17%, Somewhat 24%, Not Very 25%, Not At All 21%, Not Sure 14%. Trust problem, GDOT?

And nobody is buying the scare tactics. See Question 4, for which every region says by around 2 to 1 that traffic would stay about the same without T-SPLOST. Question 3 indicates few even think T-SPLOST would improve traffic. We also know a Plan B is possible. How about a Plan B including public transportation for south Georgia to help people get to work?

-jsq

Alcohol, development, and a tank? @ LCC 2012-04-09,10

A somewhat complicated agenda at Lowndes County Commission Monday morning (Work Session) and Tuesday evening (voting Regular Session): adoption of infrastructure for Laurelbrooke Subdivision Phase II, four public hearings (a rezoning, a road abandonment, a beer and wine license, and a liquor license). And these cryptic items:
7.a. Seminole Circle Property
7.b. Request from LCSO — GOHS Grant #2013-TEN-0077-00 & #2013-GA-0040-00
Your guess is as good as mine about the Seminole Circle Property. If the Commission wanted we the public to know, they would have told us.

Update 2012 05 06: fixed the date in the title.

However, I believe that 7.b. alphabet soup translates as Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) — Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS). The TEN in the grant numbers makes me wonder if those grants are related to GOHS’s Georgia Traffic Enforcement Networks:

The Governor’s Office of Highway Safety in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies has organized regional Traffic Enforcement Networks around the State of Georgia. There are currently sixteen regional traffic enforcement networks servicing all 159 counties in Georgia. The regional networks are open to all sworn law enforcement officers and prosecutors and are designed to enhance traffic enforcement activities through networking, training and legislation. The networks serve as a catalyst for traffic enforcement officers to voice their concerns and share ideas with their counterparts from other agencies in their region. Guest speakers and panelists have included state and municipal court judges, prosecutors, legislators, MADD representatives, Public Service Commission, and ALS judges.
LCSO participates in this TEN:
Southern Regional Traffic Enforcement Network (SRTEN) Counties included: Atkinson, Lowndes, Berrien, Brooks, Clinch, Coffee, Cook, Echols, Irwin, Lanier, Ben Hill and Tift.
Or maybe they’re just buying another tank. Or will the Commission require that “surrounding counties could be persuaded to contribute” financially like they did when refusing an emergency vehicle grant?

I’m guessing the Commissioners won’t like me guessing what they’re up to. But, you know, if they told us, for example by putting board packet details online with the agendas, we wouldn’t have to guess.

Here’s the agenda.

-jsq

LOWNDES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PROPOSED AGENDA
WORK SESSION, MONDAY, APRIL 9, 2012, 8:30 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION, TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 2012, 5:30 p.m.
327 N. Ashley Street – 2nd Floor
Continue reading →