$
,711 per student in LOCAL funding is necessary to fund the costs of education in Oconee County….

- Large Apalachee Rezone decided in Oconee court case not zoning action 1-12-06-Apalachee Beach

- Animal Control – NEGA - a continuing issue and challenge in growing counties

Apalachee River Rezone of 837.6 acres by Oconee BOC -1-5-05 - After the December 6, 2005, Oconee BOC meeting, AVOC heard from some citizens upset with the rezoning for residential two tracts of over 400 acres each on U. S. 441 and the Apalachee River at the Morgan County Line.

    .....  It seems that the Chairman of the Oconee County Planning Commission is also the registered agent for the owner-applicant of one of the tracts: Request No. 4757 by A.L.P. Development, Inc., ± 421.84 acres, located on U.S. Hwy. 441, from A-1 to AR-5.  The Planning Commission considered this rezone at its November 21, 2005, meeting.  The item was recommended for approval on a 4 to 2 vote.

At the same Planning Commission meeting the other Apalachee Rezone was considered. Rezone Request No. 4126 by Richard H. Garrett, Jr., ± 415.76 acres, located on U.S. Hwy. 441, from A-1 to AR-5.   This one had been involved in a lawsuit and apparently there was some sort of agreement with the county  A motion to Table (AVOC understands Mr. Arnold did not participate in this motion) was approved on a 4 to 2 vote (Marshall & Maxey voting no).   Even though the Planning Commission did not act, the Item was acted on at the December 6 BOC meeting.  The Planning Staff had recommended 17 conditions.  AVOC understands that the BOC approved less conditions.

      Another interesting issue is a Letter to a citizen from Chairman Melvin Davis (see below) explaining the rezones and the county’s actions.   The letter was dated December 12, only four days after the BOC-BOE joint retreat at the NEGA RDC.  The Chairman shows a lack of understanding of the real cost of education and government services in Oconee County.

      Chairman Davis does not mention the Apalachee River, watershed protection, lack of government facilities in area, Greenspace ideas, or the County’s Land Use Plan.  It does quote persons defending selling farmers in the past, “..part of their retirement..”.  However, the Timber Companies that did own much of this land were not seeking “a retirement”.  Neither are the developers.

     Another interesting issue is the address of the applicant Corporation (A L P Dev), except for Dan Arnold, is the same one for other corporations that have been doing rezones or building in Oconee County.

 GA Sec of State -Corp. Division

Oconee County Board of Commissioners    

                                                  G. Melvin Davis, Chairman

December 12, 2005

Dear Dr. Noffke: 

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the two rezone applications in lower Oconee County for five-acre lot subdivisions.

A rezone application for one of these properties was previously denied by the Board of Commissioners for a denser subdivision of smaller lots, (earlier this year). Subsequent to that denial, the property owner filed suit against Oconee County challenging the constitutionality of said denial and the validity of our Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Commissioners held firm to its position against the denser rezone citing many of the issues you outlined in your e-mail.

Because of the BOC's position, the Plaintiff agreed to a consent order from the court for the lower density five-acre lot proposal. This was more in keeping with the original recommendations of our Planning Staff and our Future Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan.

Under the Georgia Constitution and Georgia law, property owners are entitled to a reasonable economic use of their property. Over the past +/-20 years, the courts have been less and less willing to hold that agricultural zoning land use restrictions are a reasonable economic use of property, especially in the faster growing portions of north-east Georgia like Oconee County and especially where proposed development densities are low. Other factors that support some form of developmental use include location of the property on a major State/Federal highway which can clearly accommodate the traffic and adequate environmental protection measures such as storm water management, soil erosion control measures and very low net density of one house per 6.2 acres.

Also, the average price of the houses under the requirements of the Conditional Zoning Ordinance will exceed $
00,000.00. This home value should generate more than adequate tax revenues to pay the cost of schools and other government services associated with the new homes. ** The homes in the other subdivision are to be even larger and more expensive.

Another factor is compatibility of the estate size lots and mini-farm type densities with ongoing agricultural use such as timber production and cattle farms. Often times we see recreational animal use such as horses, pastures and barns on these five and six-acre parcels. This locks in the densities for years to come and prevents what might have been a higher density development in 10 or 20 years.

Another factor in our evolving land use is the retirement of many family farmers and the lack of interest of the next generation of the family to continue the farming tradition. Many of the young people are college graduates pursuing professional careers. Many others are entering the construction trades. With no one to continue the family farm and with the need for retirement income, many of these farmers want to or must sell their property. This is their retirement plan.

In the face of these and many other factors, local government officials must make difficult decisions that will stand up in court and which represent a compromise between the competing forces of historic and environmental preservation as opposed to the economic and legal realities.

We will continue to face such difficult decisions in our changing community. We always welcome input and opinions from our citizens. I have shared your comments and my response with the Board of Commissioners and our staff.

Thank you again for your input.  

Sincerely yours, Melvin Davis

12-14-04 Education Costs in Georgia (& Oconee County)

             The Oconee County School System published financial information   showing that $
,711 per student           in LOCAL funding is necessary to fund the costs of education in Oconee County….

For developers and county leaders who talk about progress”, “quality development” etc, this local cost is ignored.  Folks, IT WOULD TAKE A HOUSE COSTING $
50,000 PLUS JUST TO PAY THE LOCAL COST OF EACH STUDENT IN OCONEE SCHOOLS.

In Oconee County, it takes a piece of property with a fair market value of $
85,000 to support the local cost of educating one child. .

Property value......................................           $
85,000

Assessed value ($
85,000 x .40) . . .     $
94,000

Millage rate ($
94,000 x 15.5/1,000). .       $
,007

Collection fee ($
,007 X .025).................   $     75

Total Taxes Received................................$
,932

From: Gary Noffke

Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:35 PM

To: Melvin Davis

Subject: South Oconee Rezoning

Dear Board of Commissioners,

Rezoning of land in Oconee County has become as rampant as greed and ignorance. What about planning and controlled growth? Do zoning laws exist just for developers to change? ........

People move here for the rural beauty. They move here for our good school system. Most of all they move here for the low property taxes. The advantages for living here are rapidly dissipating. Why move to rural Georgia to live in a subdivision? While the Planni………

Sincerely,

Gary Noffke Professor Emeritus, University of Georgia

Large Apalachee Rezone decided in Oconee court case not zoning action 1-12-06-Apalachee Beach -- While the Planning Commission held a “public hearing” on November 21, 2005, and the Board of Commissioners held one on December 6, 2005, the issues were really decided in a lawsuit against the County.  On September 29, 2005, a Consent Order was signed by Judge Steve Jones In Civil Action # 200S-CV 2004-J, Oconee County Superior Court, that in effect resolved the issues in the matter.  Seven conditions for the Rezone were “approved” in the Order. 

      Condition  # 7 is a good thing.  It addresses the Apalachee Beach area that AVOC has promoted as a Public Park for several years.   It was owned by a large timber company when I was in office.  It should be preserved.   Condition 7 of the Consent Order reads as follows:

7.  Developer shall, through dedication to a Homeowner's Association, permanently

protect a common area of a minimum of 10 acres approximately located around the area of the property commonly known as "Apalachee Beach".   Developer shall also provide permanent access from the proposed public road to the said common area lot via minimum 25 foot wide easement or fee simple strip.

This is a major step but needs to go further.   The County should take title and authorize the Homeowners’ Association to “maintain and police” it.   “Everybody’s business is nobody’s business”.  This site is too pristine, unique and even historically significant to be allowed to become someone’s back yard.

     I am not sure how this came about.  However, Richard Garrett, Jr. and his relatives have always been responsible in their developments.  They have also shown respect and concern for Oconee County.  Their attorney, John Stell, is a quality person.   With folks like that involved, the County could acquire a permanent Park Site on the Apalachee.   The Riverwalk is a good idea but will require concerted action and consent of many others.  Apalachee Beach is an immediate reachable goal.

      The County and the Developer should work to insure that Apalachee Beach is a Permanent Public Park area.  Future generations will appreciate it more than a site with a lot of ball-fields and tennis courts.

Animal Control – NEGA - a continuing issue and challenge in growing counties – 2-8-06 -Animal Control becomes a bigger and bigger issue as a community grows and becomes more urbanized.   Subdivision and Lake Residents do not want rambling stray dogs annoying or attacking pedestrians, children, bicyclists and pets.   As their numbers increase, they expect and demand animal control.  They will impact elections too.

   Oconee County struggled with the issue in the late eighties.  An animal shelter was built, a Control Officer hired and a truck bought.   There are still problems but it is better than the “old days”.

    Madison County is still in an “infancy stage” of Animal Control.   They are finding it more and more difficult to ignore the problem.   The Madison County and Oglethorpe County joint shelter was a start.  However, that means a lot of driving for animal control folks.  

     Jackson County got started about two years ago and seems to have a good ordinance.  They are now looking at a shelter.    Nearby Jasper County is trying to get a $
0,000 grant toward an Animal Shelter.

     Elected officials eventually realize that Animal Control is a necessity in a populous area.   They also realize that it needs some priority funding and attention.  They will ignore the need to their political peril.

 Impact Fees Challenged by Homebuilders in Newton County 12-21-05 -  A December 7,  2006, article in The Covington News had an article about suit being filed by Newton County Home Builders Association against Newton County  for collecting impact fees it claims are unjust.   AVOC had wondered when this was coming.  Newton BOC Chair said as much in the Covington News in the issue of 12-7-05 (See Link Below).  “We felt that we would be challenged in some way or another all along,” Newton County Chairman Aaron Varner said. “I don’t think anyone was too surprised by this.”

     The Homebuilders sued Oconee County in the late 90’s over an increase in Building Permit costs.  It got more publicity than substantive relief.  See report below dated December 26, 2000.

     The Homebuilders are organized and financed at the State Level to challenge local governments.  The Georgia Impact Fee law is cumbersome and hard to administer.  The GA Homebuilders made sure of that when it was passed a couple decades ago.

    Homebuilders (as a group) are not necessarily all that popular with the general public but have clout because of advertising and campaign money. 

    The Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) should give some state-level support to local governments in these type challenges because they can have a state-wide impact.

What’s In the Future for Oconee & Other Fast-growing Counties? 12-7-05 – Despite election year claims to the contrary, Oconee County is in a fast growth mode.  A casual drive around the county graphically illustrates that.   We were named as a “Great Place to Live” by Progressive Farmer Magazine in 2005 and 2006.   Many feel the “way of life” that brought that recognition is rapidly disappearing.

     In the late 90’s, we would have visitors from time to time from around the state.  I would enjoy riding and showing some of the nice, expensive homes in Oconee County.   A number of well-known persons lived in Oconee County and their residences got more than a passing glance.   (Once I was riding around Oconee County with a Chairman from a small, rural East Georgia County.  He was very surprised at all the subdivisions that were off the main roads.  As we looked at many larger homes, he exclaimed, “Wendell, you have lost your county!”   In other words, the growth was a dominant factor in the county cultural and political life.)..........

 ..... One day, I had a shocking thought.  Since everyone wanted new and larger houses, what would happen 20-30 years down the road when the big houses would not be new?   Would they become partitioned and used as student or rental housing. 

     Life does move in cycles.   Oconee has been enjoying some good times in recent years.  Other communities want to have good times.   There will be more competition.  What will it look like in 20 years?........

 ----------------------------------------------------------------