{"id":22637,"date":"2022-01-27T12:09:08","date_gmt":"2022-01-27T17:09:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=22637"},"modified":"2022-01-31T18:04:16","modified_gmt":"2022-01-31T23:04:16","slug":"packet-staff-says-growth-over-agriculture-and-forestry-for-miller-bridge-r-a-rezoning-glpc-2022-01-31","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2022\/01\/packet-staff-says-growth-over-agriculture-and-forestry-for-miller-bridge-r-a-rezoning-glpc-2022-01-31.html","title":{"rendered":"Packet: Staff says growth over agriculture and forestry for Miller Bridge R-A Rezoning @ GLPC 2022-01-31"},"content":{"rendered":"

Update 2022-01-31<\/strong>:\r\n\r\nDasher packet item: 10 minutes from SGRC vs. too many days from Lowndes County @ GLPC 2022-01-31<\/a>.\r\n

\r\nLowndes County staff says “existing development pattern and growth of the community”\r\nis more important than agriculture and forestry\r\nfor\r\n\r\n6. REZ-2022-03 Windy Hill Subdivision, 7532 Miller Bridge Rd., 0010 022, ~34 ac.,\r\nE-A to R-A<\/a>\r\non the agenda<\/a>\r\nfor the Monday, January 31, 2022, meeting of the Greater Lowndes Planning Commission.\r\nNevermind the surrounding community overwhelmingly opposes this rezoning and it is the Lowndes County Commission\r\n(and the Chamber and others) causing this “pattern and growth” heading north into places it should not go\r\nand that the county will never be able to collect enough property taxes to support school buses, fire trucks, and Sheriff calls.\r\n

\r\nAlso, they’ve found one R-1 lot nearby and apparently the Rural Residential Character Area on Morven Road counts heavily as\r\n“proximity to the Rural Residential Character Area”.\r\nAnd they’ve ignored numerous requirements of the Comprehensive Plan for for the Agriculture\/Forestry\/Conservation Character Area,\r\nas well as what used to be a hard-no county road safety requirement.\r\n

\r\nIn case you had any doubt, this rezoning is not just about this case, it is about the\r\n“precedent set by this case for other similarly sized and located properties in Lowndes County.”\r\n

\r\n\"[REZ-2022-03:<\/a>\r\n
REZ-2022-03: Miller Bridge Road, E-A to -RA<\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nHere is the main text of the\r\n\r\nagenda sheet<\/a> for this rezoning.\r\nI have boldfaced certain phrases and interleaved the relevant maps from the board packet.\r\n

\r\n

\r\nHISTORY, FACTS AND ISSUES:\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\nThis request represents a change in zoning on the subject property\r\nfrom Estate Agriculture (E-A) to Residential Agriculture (R-A), in\r\norder to develop an 11-lot subdivision, with proposed lot sizes of\r\n2.5 to 3.11 acres.\r\n

\r\n\"[Preliminary<\/a>\r\n
Preliminary Layout Plan<\/a>\r\n
PDF<\/strong><\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe subject property is located off Miller Bridge\r\nRoad, a County maintained paved minor collector within the Rural\r\nService Area and an Agriculture\/Forestry\/Conservation Character Area<\/strong>.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\"[Future<\/a>\r\n
Future Development Map<\/a>\r\n
PDF<\/strong><\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nPer Comprehensive Plan guidance, R-A zoning is recommended within an\r\nAgriculture\/Forestry\/Conservation Character Area, while the development strategy\r\naims to maintain the rural character by limiting new development and\r\npromoting large lot sizes.\r\n

\r\n\"[Agriculture\/Forestry\/Conservation<\/a>\r\n
Agriculture\/Forestry\/Conservation Character Area<\/a>\r\n
PDF<\/strong><\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThere are currently 151 lots within a\r\n1-mile radius of the subject property, 95 of which are 10 acres or\r\nless, with a median lot size of 6.6 acres for the area. (See\r\nattachments for complete character area description and breakdown of\r\nparcels by acreage.)\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\"[Number<\/a>\r\n
Number of Parcels\/Acres Bar Graph<\/a>\r\n
PDF<\/strong><\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nFactors for consideration include 1) the predominantly agricultural\r\nzoning surrounding the subject property, 2) the amount of lands in\r\nopen or cultivated states, including woodlands and farmlands, 3) the\r\nexisting development pattern and growth of the community,<\/strong> 4) the\r\nproximity to the Rural Residential Character Area,<\/strong> and 5) the\r\nprecedent set by this case for other similarly sized and located\r\nproperties in Lowndes County.<\/strong>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\"[Zoning<\/a>\r\n
Zoning Location Map<\/a>\r\n
PDF<\/strong><\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe TRC reviewed the request and found it consistent with the Future\r\nLand Use Character Map, though inconsistent with the Community Goals\r\nand Policies. The development standards for lot width differ based\r\non the use of a central\/public water system or individual private\r\nwells, and have not been fully evaluated by the DPH or EPD at this\r\ntime.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nOPTIONS: 1. Approve 2. Approve with Conditions 3. Table 4. Deny\r\n

\r\nDEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning Staff: JD Dillard\r\nPlanning & Zoning Staff\r\n

\r\nRecommendation by the Commission:\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nThe 2021 Comprehensive Plan Update<\/a>\r\ndoes not include anything called “Future Land Use Character Map” or “Future Development Map”.\r\nThe 2016 update frequently refers to “Character Area\/Future Development Map” and includes a map called “Lowndes County Character Areas”.\r\nThat would be the map unchanged in the 2021 update, due to some\r\n\r\ndecision the Commissioners made not in a public meeting<\/a>.\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\nAs you can see, the subject property is in the Agriculture\/Forestry Character Area, where it clearly does not belong.\r\nThe detailed “Future Development Map” of the packet also shows that.\r\n

\r\nThe Comprehensive Plan writeup on\r\n\r\nAgriculture\/Forestry\/Conservation Character Area<\/a> does say R-A zoning is permitted, but is also says (I’ve added some emphasis):\r\n

\r\n

\r\nThe rural character should be maintained by strictly<\/strong> limiting new development and protecting\r\nfarmland and open space by maintaining large lot sizes and promoting use of conservation easements<\/strong>.\r\nResidential subdivisions should be severely limited<\/strong> and any minor exceptions should be required to follow\r\na rural cluster zoning or conservation subdivision design<\/strong>. New development should not utilize \u201cfranchise\u201d\r\nor \u201ccorporate\u201d architecture but instead should use compatible rural architectural styles<\/strong>. Roadways should\r\nbe widened only when absolutely necessary.<\/strong> Roadway alterations should be carefully designed to minimize\r\nvisual impact. These areas should be promoted for passive-use tourism and recreational destinations.<\/strong>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nThe agenda sheet omitted all the parts I’ve boldfaced.\r\nI see nothing in the agenda sheet, the\r\n\r\nrezoning request letter<\/a>,\r\nor the maps or other materials about \r\n“a rural cluster zoning or conservation subdivision design<\/strong>”,\r\nor\r\n“compatible rural architectural styles<\/strong>”\r\n or\r\n“These areas should be promoted for passive-use tourism and recreational destinations.<\/strong>”\r\nor\r\n“Roadways should be widened only when absolutely necessary.<\/strong>”\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe developer proposes a 60-foot right of way for the subdivision road.\r\nAnd the subdivision would have only one entrance and exit, which used to be enough alone for staff to recommend denial.\r\nIs household safety no longer important to Lowndes County?\r\n

\r\nAnd where are all these requirements from the Character Area writeup?\r\n

\r\n

\r\nImplementation Measures:\r\n<\/strong>\r\n