{"id":43,"date":"2013-03-10T11:38:11","date_gmt":"2013-03-10T15:38:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/03\/videos-2-lowndes-county-rezonings-1-valdosta-glpc-2013-02-25.html"},"modified":"2013-03-10T11:38:11","modified_gmt":"2013-03-10T15:38:11","slug":"videos-2-lowndes-county-rezonings-1-valdosta-glpc-2013-02-25","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/03\/videos-2-lowndes-county-rezonings-1-valdosta-glpc-2013-02-25.html","title":{"rendered":"Videos: 2 Lowndes County rezonings; 1 Valdosta @ GLPC 2013-02-25"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\n<\/a>\nTwo applicants in a row said they didn’t know until recently\nthat their properties had restrictions on them,\nand even staff seemed confused about at least one of them.\nMaybe there’s something wrong with how the county makes that information\navailable to purchasers of property?\nAlmost nobody attended the\nGreater Lowndes Planning Commission meeting of 25 February 2013,\nas you can see from\nthese videos<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\n\n<\/a>\nHere’s\n\nthe agenda.<\/a>\nAnd here’s a summary of the cases.\n<\/p>\n

Lowndes County, Final action,\n\nTuesday 12 March 2013<\/a><\/h2>\n

\n\n2. REZ-2013-03 Valler<\/a><\/h3>\n

\n\n\"REZ-2013-03<\/a>\n\nKnights Academy Road, Valdosta<\/a>\n
\nRequest to rezone 10 acres from\nR-21 (Medium Density Residential)\nto\nR-A (Residential Agriculture)\n<\/p>\n

\nThey want two pet thoroughbred horses on the property.\nNobody spoke against.\n<\/p>\n

\n\n<\/a>\nApplicant spoke for, saying the property was purchased\nby his mother, who is currently in Iraq, and they had\nbeen under the impression it was already zoned agricultural.\nWhen they discovered it wasn’t, they applied to change it.\n<\/p>\n

\n\nIn discussion<\/a>\nJody Hall asked\n\n\nfor a limitation of 5 or fewer horses.\nApplicant agreed.\nSomeone else asked a livestock question that I didn’t catch.\nHall made a motion to approve with that limitation.\nUnanimous recommendation for.\n<\/p>\n

3. REZ-2013-04 Thompson<\/h3>\n

\n\n\"REZ-2013-04<\/a>\nBemiss Road, Valdosta\n
\nRequest to rezone [?] acres from\nC-H\/c (Highway Commercial conditional)\nto\nC-H (Highway Commercial)\n<\/p>\n

\nDouglas O. Thompson owns two properties on Bemiss Road, but one\nof them is in Valdosta taxing district, so presumably it’s\nthe other one, of 1.28 acres at 3432 Bemiss Road.\nWhy is this a secret?\nBy County Planner Jason Davenport’s description of a property\nimmediately to the south being on Oak Street, the Thompson property\nmust be the 1.28 acres at\n\n3432 Bemiss Road<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\nApplicant wants to remove two restrictions.\nHe first asked to change to general commercial (C-G) at staff recommendation,\nbut found a property nearby at Oak Drive went to Highway Commercial,\nso staff recommended that instead and applicant agreed.\nCounty Planner actually recommended C-G instead, but the rest of the\nTechnical Review Committee (TRC) went for C-H.\nMuch discussion about buffers, which would default to a 15-40 foot\nrequirement.\n<\/p>\n

\n\n<\/a>\n\nApplicant spoke for<\/a>,\nsaying he had owned the property for ten years and only recently\nrediscovered during financing that there were conditions on it because\nit had previously been a used car lot.\nA Commissioner noted applicant seemed interested in resale, and the Commissioner\nwas concerned about what somebody else might put there in a residential\nneighborhood if it was zoned C-H.\n<\/p>\n

\n\nCommissioners discussed further,<\/a>\nmostly about how staff also had apparently been confused about\nwhat restrictions were in place and what to recommend.\nUnfortunately, the primary LAKE camera had a malfunction and the\nsecondary camera didn’t get the audio very well.\n<\/p>\n

\nEventually they\nrecommended C-G<\/a>; I believe it was 5-2.\n<\/p>\n

Valdosta, Final Action, Thursday,\n\n7 March 2013<\/a><\/h2>\n

\n\n4. VA-2013-01 Turner Brooks LLC<\/a><\/h3>\n

\n\n\"VA-2013-01<\/a>\n\n411 West Mary Street, Valdosta<\/a>\n
\nRequest to rezone 0.50 acres from\nR-6 (Single Family Residential)\nto\nR-M (Multi-Family Residential)\n<\/p>\n

\nCity Planner Matt Martin said this is phase three of a development.\n<\/p>\n

\n\nApplicant spoke for.<\/a>\nNobody spoke against.\nRecommended unanimously.\n<\/p>\n

\nHere’s\n\na video playlist:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n