Received today on Solid Waste, Developer Favors, Dollar General, Library, and Alcohol: Agenda @ LCC 2012-12-10:
Veolia was acquired by Advanced Disposal, there is no conspiracy theory here or a change of vendor than was previously voted for. http://www.wasterecyclingnews.com/article/20121120/NEWS01/121129990/advanced-disposal-closes-veolia-deal, Continue reading
Updates 9 Dec 2012: Marked with *.
Will the Lowndes County Commission Tuesday evening
finish railroading through their non-solution to solid waste disposal,
without shouldering its legal responsibility to protect
the environment and the public health, safety, and well-being from solid waste,
and what’s this about a vendor change?
Will the Chairman once again invite a developer to speak in Monday morning’s
Work Session without letting anyone else speak?
Will the Commission change the zoning code and rezone inside and against
the Moody Exclusion Zone for that same developer they already
provided $130,000 in road construction labor to back in 2007?
Does Naylor need the area’s nineteenth Dollar General, and who’s behind it, anyway?
How come the Five Points library is still on the agenda even though SPLOST VII failed?
And what are they doing to the Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance this time?
Come Monday morning at 8:30 AM and Tuesday evening at 5:30 PM and see!
Better yet, also call or write your Commissioner before then.
6.b. Solid Waste Ordinance
Will the Commissioners finish
railroading through their
already-failing non-solution to solid waste disposal
in the last session of this Chairman?
The plan for which they held
zero public hearings while any of
the Commissioners who voted on it this October were on the Commission,
yet someone down there feels free to
anonymously ridicule concerns about that plan failing?
Two citizens
spoke up anyway,
even though
Citizens Wishing to Be Heard
was after the scheduled vote last time,
and
another on this blog,
all willing to state their names, unlike the anonymous pro-trash-railroad
ridiculer.
What was that
unspecified new information
that caused them to table it last time, anyway?
8.b. Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Residential Solid Waste Collection Services with Advanced Disposal Services of Central Alabama, Inc.
What happened to Veolia; Continue reading
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
Apparently it’s the Chamber and Moody and the Planning Commission
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
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
County Planner Jason Davenport introduced this item.
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?
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 readingThe 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?
US Highway 84 East, Naylor, Georgia
3. REZ-2012-19 Robinson Milltown Properties, LLC
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.
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.
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 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
Here are videos of Saturday’s
Solar Energy Forum
at the
Center for a Sustainable Coast (CSC)
in Savannah,
with
introductions by
Steve Willis, CSC Board President,
and
David Kyler, CSC Executive Director,
presentations by
Paul Wolff
of the
City of Tybee Island
about energy independence through renewable energy (including much new information
since
his February appearance on this blog),
about how they
incorporated in June out of frustration at
Georgia Power and Southern Company stonewalling on solar energy,
the
GaSU filings with the
Georgia Public Service Commission
that got the PSC
to recommend GaSU go to the legislature
to interpret or amend the
1973 Territorial Electric Service Act,
and much information about
the financial projections that underlie
GaSU’s business plan,
We will probably post more later on the presentations by Paul Wolff and Robert Green, and the ensuing questions and answers. Meanwhile, here’s a video playlist of the entire event:
Videos, Solar Energy Forum
Solar Energy Forum, Center for a Sustainable Coast (CSC),
Videos by Gretchen Quarterman for Lowndes Area Knowledge Exchange (LAKE),
Savannah, Chatham County, Georgia, 1 December 2012.
-jsq
Disposal of solid waste (trash/garbage) is a matter of community public health and safety and providing such service is the responsibilty of the local governing bodies. How should trash health and safety responsibly be implemented?
We cannot be left in a situation where residents are either “forced
to buy” service from a provider, or have no option but to burn
their trash. The government can levy a tax, but they cannot say that
residents are forbidden to buy a service from an independent provider.
Such a ruling is
“protect the health safety, and well-being of its citizens and to protect and enhance the quality of its environment” ,
Residents in the unincorporated areas of the county who want curb side collection, for the most part, already purchase it. Those of us using the collection centers do so because it is our preference.
The county should (in my opinion) create a special tax district for waste disposal (it already makes special lighting districts) and tax the residents for the maintenance of the collection centers.
-gretchen
As we’ve seen, solid waste is a matter of public health, safety, well-being, and the environment, according to Georgia state law. Whose responsibility is it to protect the environment and the public health, safety, and well-being from solid waste?
Many health and safety issues are handled through the health department,
including the Georgia Department of Public Health,
and the
South Health District
(Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, Cook, Echols, Irwin, Lanier, Lowndes, Tift and Turner Counties).
Particularly, water quality (septic tanks, well water), food safety,
cleanliness of hotels, motels, restaurants, swimming pools and so on
are the responsibility of the local health department,
such as the
Lowndes County Health Department.
However, disposal of solid waste (trash/garbage) is handled by the local municipality or governmental body (county).
The EPA has a variety of documents available about solid waste.
So does the state EPD, as enabled through Georgia Legislation: Existing Rules and Corresponding Laws.
So, where does this leave us? See next post.
-gretchen
Solid waste is a health and safety issue, according to Georgia law.
According to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources copy of the GEORGIA COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1990 AS AMENDED THROUGH 2004,
O.C.G.A. § 12-8-21. Declaration of policy; legislative intent
a) It is declared to be the policy of the State of Georgia, in furtherance of its responsibility to protect the public health, safety, and well-being of its citizens and to protect and enhance the quality of its environment, to institute and maintain a comprehensive state-wide program for solid waste management and to prevent and abate litter, so as to assure that solid waste does not adversely affect the health, safety, and well-being of the public and that solid waste facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, do not degrade the quality of the environment by reason of their location, design, method of operation, or other means and which, to the extent feasible and practical, makes maximum utilization of the resources contained in solid waste.
Emphasis added on the parts about
health, safety, well-being, and the environment.
Those are the goals of this legislation, stated twice in the first paragraph.
Georgia being a home rule state, the implementation of these goals
is now left to the local governing bodies.
More on that next.
-gretchen