{"id":7375,"date":"2014-01-13T10:40:44","date_gmt":"2014-01-13T15:40:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=7375"},"modified":"2014-08-25T06:34:55","modified_gmt":"2014-08-25T10:34:55","slug":"new-nottinghill-subvivision-finally-resolved-lcc-2013-12-10","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2014\/01\/new-nottinghill-subvivision-finally-resolved-lcc-2013-12-10.html","title":{"rendered":"New Nottinghill subvivision finally resolved @ LCC 2013-12-10"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nThe long-deferred rezoning for the Orr Road version of the Nottinghill subdivision\r\nwas finally resolved at the\r\n\r\n10 December 2013 Regular Session of the Lowndes County Commission<\/a>.\r\n

\r\n6.a. REZ-2013-11 Nottinghill, Orr Rd R-A to R-21\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nCounty Planner Jason Davenport said\r\n“staff has laid out for you background information”, etc.\r\nand staff recommended approval.\r\n

\r\n\r\nCommissioner John Page pointed out that there was still\r\nsome question of the land being purchased by applicant,\r\nand not all the signatures were yet ready.\r\n

\r\nDavenport said some were word of mouth, others were power of attorney,\r\netc.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nThe \r\nalleged County Attorney Walter G. Elliott<\/a>\r\nsaid the ULDC provides that “the applicant\r\nshall sign the application” and doesn’t require that all the owners\r\nbe the applicant, and the Commission is left to apply a “rule of reason”\r\nas to whether enough owners had signed.\r\n

\r\n<\/a>\r\nJohn Page asked if that meant they could go ahead and rezone it even\r\nif the legal status of some of the owners was unclear.\r\nElliott said yes.\r\n

\r\nCommissioner Richard Raines wanted to know whether it was necessary\r\nto call for those for and against in the public hearing before\r\nthey decided to table it.\r\n

\r\nChairman said he’d prefer to see it move forward, since he recollected\r\nit had been on the last three agendas,\r\nso he called for the public hearing.\r\n

\r\nNobody wanted to speak against the request.\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nA Clay Browning spoke for the request on behalf of the proposed developer,\r\ngiving some details of what was being proposed in space enclosed, etc.,\r\npermitted zonings in that character area, etc.\r\n

\r\nJohn Page wanted to know if they would be half acre lots.\r\nAnswer: yes.\r\n

\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\nAlso in favor, Lewis Wright said he was one of the heirs,\r\none of the three who were still living.\r\n“Three has passed on, and one is in very bad shape.”\r\nHe said they were all in agreement, and all the legal heirs\r\nhad signed off on disposing of the property,\r\nand they “would like very much to get it approved if possible”.\r\n

\r\nJohn Page asked about the person who passed away and the interest\r\nof family members.\r\nAnswer: one had five children, but they had all signed off on it.\r\nAnother had just one daughter, and she was there at the meeting,\r\nso there was no problem, “no family problem, that is”.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nThe developer’s attorney wanted to know if more people could stand up\r\nto show they were in favor.\r\nThe Chairman said he’d prefer they come to the front and say who they were.\r\nNobody was willing to do that.\r\n

\r\nIt’s curious the Chairman didn’t require\r\n\r\nthe Spectra reps to do that\r\nthe previous morning<\/a>.\r\n

\r\nWith no further discussion, Richard Raines made a motion to approve\r\nwith a couple of conditions; John Page seconded; they approved unanimously.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\nHere’s\r\n\r\nthe video:<\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n