On the LAKE Front

Ashley Paulk's Greatest Hits!

No, not every intemperate outburst! We can't be everywhere. Just the outstanding ones from the podium as chairman in County Commission meetings.

Ashley Paulk is code enforcement

Citizens were opposing a rezoning on Old Pine Road, 8 June 2010. A Mr. Mulligan of Bemiss Road wanted to know who does code enforcement. Chairman Paulk responded:

You're looking at him. Me.

I locked up some of my best friends!

While he was interrogating Dr. Noll 12 January 2011 who had the temerity to come to invite the Commission to a meeting, Ashley Paulk remarked:

"I was the sheriff sixteen years; I locked up some of my best friends; that's the way I operate."

This was shortly after he said:

Motion to table and vote, Nottinghill on Cat Creek @ LCC 13 July 2011

Newsflash: Lowndes County Commission does right thing about rezoning!

Commissioner Raines expressed puzzlement as to what to do about rezoning for Nottinghill on Cat Creek since he thought the previous day that there was a deal between the developer and the neighbors, but it turned out there was not. Commissioner Powell recommended tabling until next meeting so the developer and the neighbors could try again to work something out.

Commissioner Powell made a motion

Nottinghill on Cat Creek by Mr. Nijem and discussion @ LCC 12 July 2011

Speaking for the Nottinghill rezoning request on Cat Creek Road, Bill Nijem said it was nothing like Glen Laurel. Nothing like repudiating your work of last year....

Commissioner Richard Raines thanked Nijem for sitting down with the neighbors.

As David Rodock wrote in the VDT the next day, Citizens speak against Cat Creek crowding: Disapprove of the proposal to build residential areas

Bill Nijem, representative of the applicant, brought forward information demonstrating his client’s willingness to work with neighbors, in that lot sizes were increased by 20 percent and that the average lot size would range from a minimum of 12,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Nijem also reminded commissioners that the applicant was willing to install any necessary buffers or fences to prevent children from playing in the neighboring fields and would have water and sewer installed with his own financial resources.

Carolyn Selby reminds me that Mr. Nijem didn't say

What are they going to put for a buffer for farms at Nottinghill —Calvin Marshall @ LCC 12 July 2011

Neighboring landowner demolishes developers' arguments; explains agriculture to Lowndes County Comission.

Neighboring landowner Calvin Marshall, speaking against rezoning for REZ-2011-10 Nottinghill, said neighbors,

“We're not interested in a Bluepool, We're not interested in a Chatham Place. And we're certainly not interested in what they built out on Val Del Road. We've also looked at what they've done with Old Pine, and we're definitely not interested in that, either. Too small lots, small homes.”

That last one is presumably Glen Laurel, which had a roomful of neighbors opposing it last year.

Calvin Marshall asked for the Commissioners to deny the Nottinghill rezoning request.

He also asked:

“The other thing that we asked the developer ... what you going to do about the neighbors that have got a farm on each side? What kind of buffer are you going to put there?
...
We farm that land, we grow crops, we run cows, we run goats, we run hogs, and we're going to continue to do that.
...
We don't have an answer as to what they're going to do for a buffer.”

Calvin Marshall continued with the economic argument:

“There's three or four generations of property owners in this room tonight. These people go back for three or four generations. And these people have worked hard.

Rezoning on Old Pine Road again: is anything different this time?

Has anything changed since the contentious Glen Laurel rezoning on Old Pine Road? Maybe yes.

The new case decided yesterday (REZ-2011-05 - Laurel Brooke), was also represented by Bill Nijem, who got up and started speaking for it, and after a bit said:

First let me introduce myself, there are new faces up here. Bill Nijem. I represent the applicant.

Assuming that Commissioners should just know who he is may not sound like a good start, But, as he already said, nobody was speaking against this rezoning. Why is that?

I would like to note when the applicant first submitted this application, it was submitted as planned development, and worked with Mr. Davenport, we did tweak the site plan somewhat, made larger lots, and now it's R-10.

And that's what the opponents of the Glen Laurel rezoning asked for. At least a couple of them were present this time. Gretchen talked to them later, and they told her that since this subdivision had what they asked for last time, they had no objections this time.

Bill Nijem even discussed traffic and accidents, which you may recall

Developers refused to budge and Commissioners caved: Glen Laurel

Should the County Commission approve rezoning for a subdivision just because developers say they won't compromise any more?

Bill Nijem presented Moody and schools nearby and the proposed house price as arguments for the Glen Laurel subdivision, plus county services, which, remember, were put in for them to use. This was after Pine Grove Elementary closed and moved farther away.

Here's Part 1 of 5:

Put there for us to use —Barbara Herring

Should developers drive the extension of county services, or should there be a planning process that takes other factors into account? The Glen Laurel rezoning case suggests that developers drive the process now.

Speaking for the Glen Laurel subdivision were Bill Nijem and Barbara Herring. She described the original layout as "a very efficient layout". She said they redesigned it and added a park in the middle and other green space in addition to natural vegetation.

All the neighbors on the outside wouldn't be able to see into it very well.

She said they also increased the lot sizes, but they did not change the road plan.

Here's Part 1 of 2:

Density and traffic

A retired Air Force veteran weighed in, asserting that new subdivisions need to be compatible and consistent with homes already in the area, and Glen Laurel would cause a lot of traffic and drive land values down.

In the long run, as far as Lowndes County is concerned, do you feel in your hearts that this is going to enhance Lowndes County as a place to come and live and enjoy?

Here's Part 1 of 3:

Whose responsibility is it after the developers are gone?

A landowner directly across from Glen Laurel pointed out that all the other subdivisions on Old Pine Road also connect to another street, so there are two ways in and out, but Glen Laurel does not. She said the photographs they submitted were of Blue Pool, Callaway Circle, and Hamilton Circle, which are all subdivisions that were developed as affordable housing for first-time homeowners, yet the houses are now in sad shape. She wondered whose responsibility is it to maintain the entrance after the developers are gone? Is it the homeowners association? This is basically the same question Mr. Mulligan asked, which Chairman Ashley Paulk answered with code enforcement.

She said that at Hamilton Circle there are cars parked on the green area,

Small lot size means more traffic —Ms. Zaun

A landowner (probably Glynda Faye Zaun) between Old Pine Road and Mulligan Road says if all those little houses are built her property values will decrease, and she'll be surrounded by 94 little homes that will generate too much traffic.

I am not against growth. Growth is beneficial to every community; I recognize that. But it should be constructed in a way that is beneficial and pleasing to everyone and not just to the developers or the ones who want to make a lot of money quick and then leave.

Here's Part 1 of 3: