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 →