In front of a packed meeting room Thursday afternoon Lumpkin County Chairman Chris Dockery made a bold promise.
“We want to give everybody an opportunity to speak,” he said. “I’m not going to cut anybody off. I don’t have a timer.”
That was the spirit of the meeting where commissioners had as many questions about the state of Lumpkin County’s land use future as the public.
Perhaps chief among them was Dockery’s question of what should be the purpose of the land use laws?
“What are we trying to accomplish?” he asked. “Are we trying to keep out gun ranges and RV Parks or are we trying to be respectful of existing residential property? I think that’s the question you have to ask yourself….Because if we’re trying to preserve the quality of life for residents that are located in Agricultural Preservation areas, then we have to look beyond things like RV parks, gun ranges, impound lots and things like that. There are other things that are probably more obnoxious and intrusive to us than those things that are maybe not related to agricultural uses.”
It took Commissioner Bobby Mayfield little time to identify part of what has made the current land use codes so problematic, a statement early on in the Lumpkin County Code chapter on Land Use that states that “Every lawful land use fits into a land use category, and no otherwise lawful land use is prohibited in any character area.”
“If you have that statement upfront that nothing is prohibited anywhere, then that demands that ubiquitous language be in the character area definitions,” Mayfield said. “…A perfect example,’ Agricultural Preservation areas are intended for uses’ alright let's stop right there, it’s got a whole list of them. That is significantly different from ‘Agricultural Preservation areas are limited to uses.’ The difference from limited and intended screens from that initial clause that says we’re not prohibiting anything. So if you can’t prohibit it, you can’t limit it. Therefore you can only intend it.”
IN THE ZONE
However, it’s that idea that any lawful land use can be done anywhere in Lumpkin County that separates the county’s code from other more traditional forms of zoning, something Commissioner Jeff Moran was told not to mess with when he was first elected to the board.
“Something has to give,” Moran said. "If we’re going to protect the residents of Lumpkin County and the way of life up here, then something has to give. When I came on board being an outsider, I mentioned the word zoning and I was told ‘wait a minute that’s a bad word. Don’t ever say that word again,’ so I’ve been cautious to tap dance around zoning….Either you want protections or you don’t want protections. If we want to move toward zoning and take out that phrase that everyone, Mr. Mayfield and myself thinks needs to come out and go towards a traditional zoning, then let's put it on the ballot. But something has to give.”
Out of the packed meeting, when given the opportunity, 11 citizens stepped forward to give their opinions during the public comments portion of the meeting. And while traditional zoning might’ve been considered a ‘bad word’ in the past, the general consensus of the comments given during the meeting would suggest Lumpkin County is ready to reconsider.
Steve Sylvester, who’s been heavily engaged as a citizen in the county’s meetings reassessing the land use codes since spearheading the opposition to a Special Land Use Application (SLUA) for a gun range off of Porter Springs Road near his home, came right out and said he’d like for the board to implement zoning.
“I would like to implement zoning regulations to remove the subjectivity and provide structure and legal protection for our defined character areas,” Sylvester said.
Judy Wheeler suggested that with the changes to Lumpkin County in the last several decades, maybe it’s time to reconsider zoning as an option.
“I know you don’t like to hear this, but 25 years ago, the decision was made to use the land use plan,” Wheeler said. “It might be time after the county has changed to let the county decide how it should go forward and perhaps it should be zoning.”
With many of the complaints based around the plans circulating of a proposed “RV Park” known as DiVine Village, Dockery suggested that disallowing a development based on what it is isn’t exactly fair.
“As we look at a development, whether it’s an RV Park or whether it’s a hog farm, I don’t think whatever that development is is as important as to what the impact of the surrounding property would be,” he said. “I think that’s what we ought to look at, the impact on the surrounding property and not necessarily whether it’s an RV Park or a hog farm.”
Following the meeting, the next step, according to the timeline given by Planning Director Bruce Georgia, is for the commissioners to give their input to county staff leading up to a work session of the Planning Commission meant for discussion of the land use regulations, which is currently scheduled for January 10. A 180-day moratorium has been enacted by commissioners, halting any action permitting new commercial development in the Agricultural Preservation, Rural Places and Residential Growth character areas of the county.
The moratorium is set to expire on March 20.
Following the work session, the board of commissioners would hold a public hearing for input to revisions to the land use regulations on January 24 at 6 p.m. in the commissioners boardroom at 99 Courthouse Hill.
"lively" - Google News
January 06, 2022 at 12:00AM
https://ift.tt/3n0FWyT
Land plan debated at lively county meeting - Dahlonega Nugget
"lively" - Google News
https://ift.tt/35lls9S
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Land plan debated at lively county meeting - Dahlonega Nugget"
Post a Comment