{"id":22608,"date":"2022-01-24T11:23:51","date_gmt":"2022-01-24T16:23:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=22608"},"modified":"2022-01-25T13:43:57","modified_gmt":"2022-01-25T18:43:57","slug":"why-should-lowndes-county-spend-half-a-million-dollars-to-subsidize-a-developer-2022-01-24","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2022\/01\/why-should-lowndes-county-spend-half-a-million-dollars-to-subsidize-a-developer-2022-01-24.html","title":{"rendered":"Why should Lowndes County spend half a million dollars to subsidize a developer? 2022-01-24"},"content":{"rendered":"

Update 2022-01-25<\/strong>:\r\n\r\nDiscussion of court grants and Loch Laurel Road project, little of property subsidy @ LCC 2022-01-24<\/a>.\r\n

\r\nThe $568,971.00 for\r\n\r\n5.k. Property Purchase \u2013 Building Valdosta, LLC<\/a> is\r\na markup of $323,971 over the price that property sold for last year,\r\nsupposedly to protect Moody AFB, even though how is not said and it’s 2.4 miles away.\r\nThe developer is the same as for the 5999 Val Del Road rezoning last October.\r\nAnd there appear to be more previous subsidies from the County Commission to the same developer.\r\n

\r\nThis current giveaway on GA 122 is on the\r\nagenda<\/a>\r\nfor this morning’s Work Session and Tuesday evening’s voting Regular Session\r\nof the Lowndes County Commission.\r\n

\r\nWho does it profit?\r\nAnd how does it protect Moody AFB?\r\n

\r\n\"[Building<\/a>\r\n
Building Valdosta parcel, Comprehensive Plan with MAZ<\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

\r\nAfter I pointed out to the Lowndes County PIO and Clerk that the county\r\nwas apparently in violation of the Georgia Open Records Act (GORA)\r\nby not returning the board packet within three days,\r\nthey sent it at 7PM on Saturday.\r\nThe packet is \r\non the LAKE website<\/a>.\r\nHowever, the packet includes no information about this item beyond\r\nthe agenda sheet, which says:\r\n

\r\n

\r\nHISTORY, FACTS AND ISSUES: At the direction of the Commission, staff\r\nhas worked with the County Attorney to prepare a purchase agreement\r\nthat will provide for Lowndes County to purchase 41.543 acres of\r\nproperty on Highway 122 inclusive of development costs incurred by\r\nthe current owners and as reflected in the agreement, for the\r\npurpose of protecting Moody Air Force Base from encroachment.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nIt doesn’t say where that 41.543 acres is.\r\nBut the Lowndes County Tax Assessors online web pages and map\r\nfind it as 7404 E HWY 122, 2.4 miles north of Moody AFB.\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\"[Building<\/a>\r\n
Building Valdosta LLC, 7404 E HWY 122, 41.54 acres<\/a>,\r\nin\r\nLowndes County Tax Assessors Map<\/a>.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nAs you can see, the assessed value is $170,806.\r\nThat’s close to the $173,000 Rodney Cain paid for it May 18, 2018.\r\n

\r\nHe sold it for $245,000 on January 14, 2021, to Building Valdosta LLC.\r\n

\r\nAnd now the county proposes to buy it for $568,971.00.\r\n

\r\nFYI, Rodney Cain is the Lowndes County Tax Commissioner (not Assessor).\r\nHe already got 41% profit off that parcel.\r\n

\r\nNow the county proposes to pay another 132% markup.\r\n

\r\nTo whom?\r\nAccording to the Georgia Secretary of State,\r\nBuilding Valdosta LLC was originally formed in 2015, but administratively dissovled September 7, 2018.\r\n

\r\nThen it was \r\n\r\nreinstated January 17, 2019<\/a>,\r\nwith a curious notarized addendum saying:\r\n

\r\n

\r\nI, Clint Joyner, certify that I was a member of Building Valdosta, LLC at the time it was administratively dissolved.\r\nI have knowledge of and do hereby assent to the application for resintatement.\r\n

\r\n[signed]\r\n
\r\nClint Joyner\r\n

\r\nSworn to and subscribed before me\r\n
\r\nthis 25th<\/sup><\/small> of January 2019.\r\n

\r\n[Notary signature and seal.]\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nThat statement does not say whether or not he’s still involved in the reinstated LLC.\r\nThe Registered Agent is Jack Langdale with his office address as Principal Office,\r\nas is the case with many LLCs.\r\n

\r\nThe 2020 annual filing lists Eric M. Tillman as the authorized person.\r\n

\r\nThe 2021 and 2022 annual filings list Clint Joyner as the authorized person.\r\n

\r\nSo, which of these people stand to gain $323,971 markup from the county’s purchase of this property?\r\n

\r\nAnd what do they plan to use the property for?\r\nWhatever it is, how does it help protect Moody AFB?\r\n

\r\nThat parcel is in the Moody Activity Zone (MAZ), which restricts uses such as subdivisions.\r\n

\r\n\"[LOWNDES<\/a>\r\n
LOWNDES COUNTY CHARACTER AREA MAP<\/a>\r\n
PDF<\/strong><\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe above is the map for the 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update.\r\n

\r\nBut the MAZ is the same in the 2016 Update map:\r\n

\r\n\"[Lowndes<\/a>\r\n
Lowndes County Character Area Map 2016<\/a>\r\n
PDF<\/strong><\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe Lowndes County Unified Land Development Code (ULDC)<\/a> says, among other things in 4.02.04:\r\n

\r\n
    \r\n
  1. \r\nDevelopment standards within the MAZ Zoning districts\r\n
      \r\n
    1. \r\nWithin the MAZ, in addition to those uses prohibited in Chapter 2, the\r\nfollowing uses are prohibited:\r\n
        \r\n
      1. \r\nMulti-Family Residential Development; and\r\n
      2. \r\nSingle-Family Residential with a Density of more than one (1)\r\nunit per two and one-half (2.5) acres.\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

        \r\nLowndes County has three zoning districts within MAZ:\r\nMAZ I, MAZ II, and MAZ III.\r\nThe current codification of these districts was somewhat controversial\r\nwhen proposed back in June 2015<\/a>.\r\nMoody AFB had some things to say about them, as relayed to the County Commission in October 2015<\/a>, including:\r\n

        \r\n

        \r\nThe initial presentation of these family and agricultural worker types of allowances were ultimately withdrawn due to concerns over the long-term potential increases in density and the negative impacts that they may have on Moody AFB. In lieu of those family and agricultural worker density increases County leadership has discussed investigating some form of financial relief for MAZ property owners.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

        \r\nIs that what the county is doing now? Offering “financial relief” for MAZ property owners?\r\nBut the current owners did not own the subject property in 2015.\r\n

        \r\n\r\n\"MAZ<\/a>\r\n
        \r\nGeneral Mapping of MAZ in\r\n        MAZ ULDC Text Amendment TXT-2015-01\r\n8 June 2015<\/a>.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

        \r\nThe subject property is in MAZ II.\r\nAccording to ULDC Table 4.01.03(B), buildings have to have a minimum width of 21 feet and be built of “Wood, masonry, concrete,\r\nstucco, masonite, vinyl\r\nlap, or other materials of\r\nlike appearance. The\r\nsiding shall not be made\r\nof metal or any similar\r\nshiny or reflective\r\nmaterial.”\r\nSkirting Material must be “Brick, concrete, wood,\r\nrock, or other materials\r\nspecifically\r\nmanufactured for the\r\npurpose of skirting.\r\nVinyl skirting is not\r\nallowed.”\r\n

        \r\nWe don’t know whether any subdivision in the proposed property would meet those requirements, because the board packet doesn’t say even that there is a proposed subdivision.\r\n

        \r\nSee also:\r\n

        \r\n
          \r\n
        1. \r\nAll applications for rezoning and development approval, including site\r\nplans, building permits, subdivision plats, sign permits, temporary use\r\npermits, and other permits and plans shall be subject to review by the\r\nMoody Air Force Base Installation Commander or designated\r\nrepresentative. Such review shall be limited to issues of compatibility\r\nwith Moody Air Force Base and issues affecting the safety of persons and\r\nproperty related to aircraft take-offs, landings, and flight operations.\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

          \r\nSo did the Commander object to this development?\r\n

          \r\nIn any case, any developer should have known all this about the MAZ\r\nwhen they bought the property in January 2021, or May 2018.\r\n

          Character Area<\/H4>\r\n

          \r\nEven without the MAZ, the subject property is in the Agriculture and Forestry Character Area of the Comprehensive Plan.\r\n

          \r\n\r\n\"Comprehensive<\/a>\r\n
          \r\n          \r\nComprehensive Plan Future Development Map<\/a> in\r\nMAZ ULDC Text Amendment TXT-2015-01\r\n8 June 2015<\/a>.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

          \r\nAre the “development costs” the county wants to subsidize costs for building a subdivision?\r\nIf so, what was it doing there in the first place?\r\n

          \r\nThe same developer benefited by the Lowndes County Commission\r\n\r\nsplit vote to approve 5.b. REZ-2021-16 G W Farms, 5999 Val Del Road<\/a>\r\nOctober 12, 2021,\r\nalso in the Agricultural and Forestry Character Area,\r\nfar outside of any appropriate Character Area,\r\ndespite a 7:2 Planning Commission recommendation of denial,\r\ncounty staff recommending denial,\r\nand a thousand-signature petition against that rezoning.\r\n

          More before that<\/H4>\r\n

          \r\nA previous proposed amendment to the MAZ was also controversial\r\nback in 2012; see\r\nJason Shaefer, Valdosta Daily Times, December 19, 2012,\r\n\r\nCounty, Moody fight over base activity zone ordinance<\/a>.\r\nThe main purpose for these changes seemed to be to allow a subdivision \r\nwith parcels smaller than 2.5 acres about three miles from the base.\r\nThen-Chairman Ashley Paulk noted, “I want to make it very clear that I don\u2019t have any interest in that subdivision on Davidson Road.”\r\n

          \r\nChairman Paulk spoke for that text amendment to the Valdosta-Lowndes County Chamber of Commerce, but they voted to oppose it.<\/a>\r\nAs did the Greater Lowndes Planning Commission, and it was opposed by the county’s own Technical Review Committee, as well as by Moody AFB.\r\n

          \r\nWhen a MAZ ULDC text amendment came back in July 2015<\/a>,\r\nnew Chairman Bill Slaughter said they had “absolutely nothing to do with” the 23 acres on Davidson Road that were proposed to be rezoned R-21 back in 2010, after the county paved Davidson Road.\r\n

          \r\nBut back in November 2012 at the Planning Commission<\/a>, then-County Planner\r\nJason Davenport did tie the 2012 proposed ULDC changes to the proposed rezoning REZ-2012-17:\r\n

          \r\n

          \r\nWe’ve recently had that rezoning request 2012-17 which was for the R-10\r\nzoning district that\r\n\r\ny’all saw and recommended on last month.<\/a>\r\nAt\r\n\r\nthe County Commission level<\/a>\r\nthey recommended\r\n\r\nto table that request.<\/a>\r\nAs a response one of the things we learned that the Commission had\r\nconcerns with the density requirement in this area.\r\nAs a result this text amendment is a potential way to address that.\r\nBasically saying that if you have a more restrictive zoning closer\r\nto the base,\r\nthis zoning can be less restrictive than one acre.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

          \r\n