Received today; they sent it to all the Commissioners. -jsq

To the Lowndes County Commission:

It has been quite an experience dealing with the proposed closing of


a portion of County Road 16. Our quaint spot on the river in Naylor,
Lowndes County is something that can easily be taken for granted,
but it is something that should be treasured and appreciated by the
entire county. While we have learned a rich history about Naylor and
the County Road proposed to be closed, we will not encumber you with
these details. We will let you know in this letter the laws and
reasons why the proposal should be denied.

First off, the landowner did not legally own the land when he made
his request for the closing of the road. The legal date this
property was deeded to Phillip Connell is February 8, 2013. The day
his request was made is unknown because the letter sent had the date
whited out and is an exact copy of the September 10, 2010 letter he
submitted. It is known that the proposal for a public hearing was
made in the Commission meeting January 22, 2013. The county should
not be hearing this proposal for being misled by Phillip Connell.
Why instead is the County claiming that a legal transaction for this
land occurred 2 or 3 years ago and now has extended it to 3 or 4
years ago? Where is the proof for this claim?

Second, the landowner’s claim about liability, trash and trespassing
is

unwarranted. In the

Georgia Recreational Statute, Title 51,
Chapter 3, Article 2 owners’ liability toward persons entering
thereon for recreational purposes is limited. Also, we have observed
and photographed 3 other nearby areas on the Alapaha River,
Lakeland, Mayday and Statenville, Naylor is the cleanest of these
locations. This lower amount of trash is most likely due to the
local concerned citizens who pick up trash down there. It is
definitely not a result of Phillip Connell who dumped large concrete
pylons on the land to attempt to block people out of an area that
should have the same prescriptive easement as the rest of the road
because it does not have trespassing signs on it. Phillip Connell
has only owned this land since February 8, 2013. How does he know
whether trespassing occurred on this land? Was he policing Dr.
Acree’s land?

Third, The County needs to have access to this land and the river
because the state requires that the County provide a 150 foot buffer
which should be designed to protect the corridor of the river. It is
stated in the Southern Georgia Regional Commission, 2011 Regionally
Important Resources Plan that the Alapaha River is protected (please
see attachment). In fact, there is a picture of Hotchkiss Landing
(the spot on the river at the end of County Road 16) on page 59,
underneath the heading of Protected River Corridors. We do know the
County has a protective river corridor plan, good as of 2003. Is the
County’s plan up to date and do they still have ways to implement
their responsibilities after this road is closed?

Fourth, the County has a 2030 Comprehensive Plan which in its agenda
refers to exactly what needs to be done in the situation we are
dealing with. For example in

2.4.1 Park/Recreation/Conservation Area:

Description: Undeveloped, natural lands with significant natural


features including floodplains, wetlands, watersheds, wildlife
management areas and other environmentally sensitive areas not
suitable for development of any kind. Development Strategy: The
natural, rural character should be maintained by not allowing any
new development and promoting use of conservation easements.
Roadways in these areas should be widened only when absolutely
necessary. Roadway alterations should be carefully designed to
minimize the visual impact. These areas should be promoted for
passive-use tourism and universally designed recreational
destinations.

Quality Community Objectives:

1) Heritage Preservation Objective: The traditional character of the
community should be maintained through preserving and revitalizing
historic areas of the community, encouraging new development that is
compatible with the traditional features of the community, and
protecting other scenic or natural features that are important to
defining the community’s character.

All of this looks great on paper but needs to be implemented. As
stated in the “Law of Easements”, Georgia Civil
Engineering and Surveying Land Law, November 12, 2010, Atlanta,
Georgia, “Georgia joined in with other states and enacted the
Uniform Conservation Easement Act in 1992, codified at OCGA 44-10-1
et seq.” “In conjunction with local governmental
agencies and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Conservation Easements are a valuable tool to preserve land for
future generations.” “One of the benefits of a
Conservation Easement for the owner of the property, other than that
they have given to the public at large, is the fact that there can
be significant tax incentives for doing so. The IRS may allow for a
tax deduction as a charitable contribution and Georgia law
specifically contemplates that property taxes would be lower once a
Conservation Easement is granted.” Why isn’t the county
working with Phillip Connell to provide a conservation easement? Why
would they instead propose to buy land in a different area that is
undeveloped and in contradiction to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan?

Fifth, there have been many precedents set about road closings and
river usage. In 1973,

231 Ga. 255 Supreme Court of Georgia, Ronald
B. Griffith et al. v. C & E Builders, Inc., it was specifically
upheld that:

‘Neither the General Assembly nor a subordinate public corporation
acting under its authority can lawfully vacate a public street or
highway for the benefit of a private individual. The street or
highway can not be vacated unless it is for the benefit of the
public that such action should be taken. The benefit may be either
in relieving the public from the charge of maintaining a street or
highway that is no longer useful or convenient to the public, or by
laying out a new street or road in its place which will be more
useful and convenient to the public in general. If the public
interest is not the motive which prompts the vacation of the street,
whether partial or entire, the act of vacation is an abuse of power,
and especially would it be a gross abuse of power if it is
authorized without reference to the rights of the public and merely
that the convenience of a private individual might be subserved.’

It has also been uphold in courts that: “The state has a duty
to maintain public access routes to rivers under certain conditions
as part of its public trust duties. Courts have found it unlawful
for a state to close off an existing public access route when there
are not other public access routes nearby.” Will the County
Commission take its duties to the public serious and deny this road
closure and then work with the landowner to provide a conservation
easement like the area deserves?

All the questions and statements contained in this letter are
important and should be considered in the decision making process of
the County Commission. It should also be considered the amount of
letters, contact and signatures on the petitions that have come from
the local community and surrounding areas. Let’s work together to
preserve our heritage and community. Please deny the closure of .17
miles of County Road 16 leading to the Alapaha River. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Brett Huntley

Christopher Graham

April Huntley