“I think the city has been put in a terrible situation,” Council Member George Crowley stated be-fore the vote during the council’s Monday, June 8, meeting. He added that he felt the county has a “valid request,” but that the city should have been involved the overlay district planning process since the beginning.
During the city work session earlier in the day, Crowley said he felt that the city was being “pres-sured to make a decision.”
Council member David Hammond said he liked several things about the overlay district concept but that the city and county need to “hammer out” some solutions. He said he approved of trying to build a better community. “If we’re going to do it, we’ve got to start somewhere,” he said. “If you want to get away from what you’ve got, you’ve go to dot your I’s and cross your T’s and try to get there.”
Crowley asked County Commissioner Judy Bailey why the county chose not to simply oppose the annexations. Had they chosen to do this, he said, the city could have pursued avenues to change its zoning ordinances to more closely match those of the overlay districts. The city and county are in a “no win” situation right now, he said, because the regulations do not match and any agreement be-tween the two entities is up in the air.
The landowners requesting annexation are also in a tight spot, he said, because they cannot ap-proach the city or county in order to pursue their plans for the property.
Bailey said the commissioners were aware they could oppose the annexation request but that “counties don’t win when they oppose annexation.”
Rick Brown, representing the ownership of the annexation request in question, said the owners do not want “additional restrictions put on commercial property.” He said the overlay guidelines make the property “almost useless except for residential development.” He cited a six-foot sign height limit as a drawback.
He also said the owners had donated five acres to the county for greenspace when the property was rezoned C-1 in 2004. According to Jonathan Fortin of SunTrust Bank, the trustee for the prop-erty owners, the Joan Brown Foundation and the Camp Estate, said the overlay forestation require-ments would shave another 10 acres off the property.
Contrary to statements from Fortin, Bailey explained the 15 and 20 percent forestation require-ments for residential and commercial developments respectively, only apply to land that was previ-ously forested and then clear-cut. In this case, trees must be replanted, she said, but where trees did not exist in the first place, the rule does not apply.
Several residents who live near the property in question spoke in opposition of the annexation request saying they are afraid it will be commercially developed. Keith West said his property bor-ders the area and that the five donated acres only provide a 150-foot buffer zone. He said he was concerned about a truck stop or factory going in close to his home.
West asked if there are no plans to develop the property, as Brown said earlier, why the owners were concerned about the impact of the overlay districts. “To me this is almost a classic case of ‘dad told me ‘no,’ let’s go ask mama,’” he said.Another annexation request for 5.07 acres owned by Paul Lusk on Highway 225 was rendered in-eligible by the city’s decision not to annex the other property. Lusk’s parcel adjoined the property in the declined annexation, and it was no longer contiguous with city property after the other re-quest was off the table.
The regular June 22 city council meeting has been moved to Monday, June 15, at the Calhoun De-pot at 7 p.m. due to the annual Georgia Municipal Association meeting in Savannah. A work session will precede the meeting at noon that day.
Post a Comment