Board of County Commissioners Office of Planning & Development 107 N. Gross Road Suite 3 · Kingsland, GA 31548 Phone: (912) 729.5603 · Fax: (912) 729.5543 · www.co.camden.ga.us

MINUTES

Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM

A) INVOCATION: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P. M. and John Peterson gave the invocation.

B) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: John Peterson led us in the pledge of allegiance.

C) ROLL CALL: Commissioners present as follows: Michael Bowick, Ben Casey, Peter Magoon, Greg Moore, Planning Director John Peterson, County Attorney John Myers and Cindy Daniels. Glenn Ivey was absent.

D) ADDITION AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: Michael Bowick made a motion to move items 4 and 5 of new business to items 1 and 2 of new business of the agenda, seconded by Peter Magoon.

The motion carried 4-0.

F) ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

G) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 29, 2014, PC Meeting: Michael Bowick made a motion, seconded by Greg Moore, to approve the minutes.

The motion carried 4-0.

Reading of Public Hearing Rules by Staff: Dispense reading of public hearing rules by staff.

Ben Casey advised audience to silence all electronic devices. Ben Casey instructed Mr. Peterson to present the first item on the Agenda.

H) OLD BUSINESS: 1) Special Exception Variance - ZV2014-1 Preston & Karen Holliday are requesting a Special Exception Variance from 20’ minimum side yard setback to 5’ as required in UDC Sec. 210 (c) (4) respectively, in order to construct a proposed 22’ X 22’ enclosed metal building at 1404 Colerain Road, Kingsland, Ga., shown as Tax Map #069, Parcel #005D, Zoned A-R (Agricultural- Residential), with the Future Land Use Map shown as “Residential”. M.B. Motion/2nd P.M. Rec. to Deny 3-1. John Peterson stated at the last meeting the applicants were asked to furnish any information they had that might show different options and we have not received any to date so it’s not included in the packet and the finding of fact pretty much stands as it is so I have nothing further to put before you. I ask whichever way you go on this that you adopt the finding of fact and make your motion and move on with this and move this item to the County Commissioners because it has been tabled and it can’t remain tabled any longer at this level.

Ben Casey asked if anyone wished to speak since this is a public hearing. Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 2 of 13

A citizen from the audience asked if it was being stopped because it was going on the wetlands. Ben Casey replied no. It is because it’s encroaching on the property line. In that area the way it’s zoned, you have a 20’ setback and they want to go into 5’ from the property line. Yes, it’s the side yard setback. Ben Casey asked if anyone asked if anyone wished to speak against the item.

Ben Casey asked if anyone wished to make a motion on this item.

Michael Bowick made a motion to deny based on the recommendation that the Planning Commission gave them a request for more information and they do not want to furnish it and I recommend denying this request, seconded by Peter Magoon.

Ben Casey asked if there was any discussion on the motion.

A citizen from the audience asked if they were denying the request to do what this variance is asking for them to build this. Ben Casey stated yes that is the motion right now. Citizen stated he just wanted to make sure. Ben Casey said his understanding in reason why they wanted to put it that close was is in that area they want to go in between the well and their property line.

We’ve got a motion and a second. All in favor? Peter Magoon, so we’re recommending denial, is that correct? Ben Casey, yes. Peter Magoon, are there any negative? Ben Casey, yea me. Peter Magoon, ok.

I) NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing Items -

1) Special Exception Variance – ZV-2014-2 Matt Jordan representing RLF Kingsland Properties, LLC, is requesting variances from UDC Sec. 1303.(b)(5) Public Street Frontage, to allow a 2 lot Minor Subdivision “Ten-lot Split”, and a recombination of RLF Kingsland Estate Subdivision Lots # 12 & 16, as proposed. RLF Kingsland Estate Subdivision Lots # 12 & 16 are shown on Tax Map 070C Parcels 012 and 016, Zoned A-F (General agricultural – forestry district), with the Future Land Use Map shown as “Residential”. M.B. Motion/2nd B.C. to Approve 3- 1. John Peterson presented the staff recommendation and asked Chairman Casey if he would like to take that up and then go on to the second findings of fact regarding the unpaved street access or would you like for me to go on? Chairman Casey said we can take up the next one. John Peterson presented staff recommendation on second proposed variance and said he would be glad to answer any questions. Chairman Casey asked if anyone had any questions for John Peterson. Peter Magoon said he had a question for Mr. Peterson. Mr. Magoon asked if that was basically the first challenge to the UDC on these subjects about the unpaved roads and curb cuts since they brought in the UDC in January 2009, he thinks? Mr. Peterson said these are the first variance requests that have come forward. Peter Magoon asked, how are we going to handle this? Are we going to vote on one or both of them at the same time? Ben Casey replied he would vote on both of them at the same time. Michael Bowick said I think we have some people that want to speak. Peter Magoon said are you going to hold a public hearing? Ben Casey answered, right. Ben Casey asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the item.

Matt Jordan, Cumberland Land Surveyors, I gave ya’ll a map earlier that was done in April 2013 by Thomas & Hutton. We were hired by the Shaw Tate Group to subdivide this land in not necessarily that fashion but in the fashion that you see here which was 25 acre and up lots. Well we went to the county with a plan to do this but we also had that map in our hands. This was in May of 2013. We were told by several county officials that what we could do was an estate lot Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 3 of 13

subdivision which is what we had planned to do with 25 acre lots and then come back and do a minor subdivision split of lots along the paved road because we have paved road access, mind you this was in May 2013. We recorded the original subdivision in August 2013, which is when we went to work on dividing this property which we were told that we could do by county officials. In October 2013, I sent John a pdf copy of a finished plat of the 10-lot split or the 5 acre lots that you see on Colerain. Approximately, October 15th we gave him the hard copies and never heard anything else. Kept going to work because we were told that we could subdivide that property that way. Well late in December of 2013, we get a letter stating that we can no longer do that. Due to the road reclassification it no longer meets the UDC which I can tell you from that time all the work had been done on the property. Surveying it had been complete. Marketing had been done on the property. It kind of just left us out hanging out to dry at that point. Well, it was put off to us that DOT was the one that had the problem with it so we met with Billy Smith of the DOT. We took him out onsite. Showed him the property. There are existing curb cuts. I think there are three existing curb cuts along the west. The west lots that would meet the requirements of the state. Billy Smith with the state stated that he would have zero problems with this subdivision as long as the county didn’t have any problems with this subdivision. It meets the requirements of the state which is 350 feet of separation of driveways for a major road like the road is going to be. The variance stems from the fact that we were told a way to do the subdivision. Proceeded with it. The works done. Now we can’t do it and I don’t have to tell you how much money that land cost. You know the developers have a pretty decent outlay of cash. We’re just looking to be able to do what we were told to do there. Do you have any questions? Michael Bowick said this is a case of you talking to somebody and them telling you, yea you can go ahead and do this. Matt Jordan said Scott Brazell, Public Works Director, we met with him May of 2013, this is a letter that he typed out for us, he signed it stating that the 13 lots frontal are more than a minor subdivision. We knew that. This is all his handwriting on this plan here. This was not our plan to do this. We were told, hey look, why don’t you guys get more lots? You’ll get a little more bang for your buck. I presented it to the developer. He said go for it, if you can do it. Do it. Michael Bowick asked John Peterson if he had the authority to tell him that without it coming before the Planning Commission. Michael Bowick said is that not something that should not have come before us? John Peterson said that is the first I have seen of that. I know that Matt has mentioned that this discussion took place. Matt introduced Terrell Brazell. He represents the developer out there. Terrell said they basically came out and met with everyone out there. Met with John. Met with everybody. This UDC code about the major classification. This should have been an in house sign off. This would never have had to come before ya’ll. Michael Bowick said that’s why he was just asking because he has been on before and that’s the first he’s seen. I’ve been on for 10 years. So he had the right. He could tell them they could do that then John. John Peterson said he is the one that administers that section of the ordinance concerning access and roads. So he was speaking for the county and he could do it. That’s what they are saying. Yes. We were also going back and forth between both parties. I wasn’t part of that conversation. Matt Jordan said he saw the email from Clay Carter and said it was the first he had seen of it. It gets to the point that in October that Planning and Building knew about this plan to do the 5 acre lots on Colerain. Actually in May but officially in October. I can look at the date that I wrote the check to the county. At that point and time, we could have been told about this letter from the state. The amount of time and money that has been outlaid there. Terrell Brazell said it came down to do you know the rule or not? December 17th, we got the letter from John stating the rural collector road how you can’t divide because of that and that was the end all. Greg Moore said we need a copy of that. That’s been presented. Terrell Brazell said they had also met with the county manager, all the different departments and all the staff. We met with Harvey Amerson, the new Public Works Director and so far John’s going to the rule. He’s the staff that didn’t particularly like what we’ve done and we’ve had the hang out to dry. We’ve been talking about it with different county officials. We were told to come talk to all of you guys and present it here but I just didn’t think it appropriate to bother all of you on your own time. Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 4 of 13

Ben Casey asked, if anyone wanted to speak in opposition of this?

Joe Blaze – 155 Holly Haven, which is just after the electrical station. I don’t know who talked to who and promised who what. I just know 2 things. I turn left into Holly Haven every day. I just got hit 2 months ago. Every day you go to turn left onto Holly Haven people go flying by you. You basically have to jump off of Colerain Road to try and not get hit. You’re dodging a car. What the guy did to me, he was coming so fast, he tried to pass me on the left to get around me. That’s how fast people go on Colerain. It’s well known. Now every trucker goes on Colerain. They are not supposed to be going down there but you’ve got every logging truck in the world driving down there now. I can’t imagine what’s going to happen when it goes 4 lanes and now I get to cross 2 lanes of traffic to get into my street. I’m sure all engineers will take that into account and they will make it a safe road so we can turn in and now they are going to add more driveways trying to get off of Colerain now. My second thing is that I’m going to have a bigger issue with is drainage. I moved in 2005. I have a septic system. It worked fine. They went in and logged all that acreage behind us. I don’t know how many hundreds of acres it was. It was dry as a bone back there. A year later, I had to put a remediator in my septic system. Right now, we had rain just the other day, there is over a foot of water in my back yard. It will take probably weeks for it to drain out. My front yard, the ditches used to drain fine. There is about a foot and a half of water in my front yard. It will take a good week and a half for that to drain out. The drainage that runs along Colerain, they went by that electrical station. They dug that up about 2 years ago and fouled it all up. There’s a main drain that goes a couple hundred yards behind our house there. I think its Wolfbay Pass or something there. It goes right alongside a paved road back there. There is a main drain that goes back there. When they logged all of that they screwed all of that back up there completely and the majority of our houses back there on Holly Haven, I know at least a few of them flood. The waters horrible. I don’t know what they are going to do when they build but I hope part of that is a major portion of drainage. That’s my 2 huge reasons for it. If they do build back there, I hope that’s something that is definitely addressed. Drainage and how to get off that road without getting killed. Thank you.

Cynthia Hollingsworth – I am a land owner out on Colerain Road and I own about 105 acres that are on the right side (north side) of Colerain Road and I can’t imagine that my entire future is going to be addressed liked this. If I decide to give my sons a piece of property that they are going to have to go back into the woods and go around and down and we’re going to have to build a road on the interior because we are not going to be able to exit out onto Colerain Road and go through all the process of getting a variance like this and possible being denied. It shuts down the progress of my heritage to my family. I can’t imagine the opposition that’s being for 2 driveways down at that area. I understand that it’s dangerous and I understand that going to turn into left. That was a drunk driver that hit Joe. That was a terrible terrible thing and I do understand that but we may need to suggest getting some more officers patrolling our areas as well and do something about the trucks that are coming through if that’s the risk. It’s really appalling to me that I can’t deed out a couple of acres to my son and he’s going to have to go inward to get out without going through a process to this degree. A variance should definitely be granted. It’s shutting progress. I mean I understand you can’t change things. This overpass thing I don’t know who created this mumbo jumbo that’s going to happen out there. I think it’s totally crazy but I’m one person. That’s my opinion. That within itself is pretty bad. What happens to my future with stuff? What happens to this man’s place up there when you shut down and deny access? What do we do then? What are the alternatives? Do we have any? That’s my way of looking at it. Something needs to be done to make it work. I don’t know what but something needs to be able to work. They have a plan and 2 driveways down there. It’s going to pour out. I don’t know where it’s going to pour out but the overpass that they’re going to do, I don’t think that the land owners because there and not that many land owners, you know we all own pretty big tracks out there. It’s not an acre here, an acre there, the county causes us to have a certain Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 5 of 13

amount of land to do a 2 acre. I don’t know what it is now but I just don’t think we should be shut down like that. We are the history of this county. We have been here and we are going to get stopped from doing what we need to do in order to live. It’s just kind of crazy and I just don’t understand how to go through all of this stuff.

Ben Cased asked if there was any discussion.

Peter Magoon said the Public Hearing was closed.

Ben Cased asked if anyone wanted to make a motion on this item.

Peter Magoon made a motion to recommend denial of the variance ZV-2014-2

Ben Casey asked if anyone had a second.

Peter Magoon stated no second no motion.

Ben Casey asked if somebody would like to make another motion.

Peter Magoon asked John Peterson if that he had said in the staff recommendations that you can table the request to allow the applicant to provide more information as a basis for approval consideration that is presently lacking. That to me says you don’t think we received enough information. Would you be specific on what this Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners should be receiving?

John Peterson – That is stated as it was in the variance request because there was a lack of information and any time that you feel that there is a lack of information that is an option available to the Planning Commission and that’s why that is stated. It’s not stated because my opinion is there as a lack of information necessarily. Just that there needs to be enough information furnished to you all upon which to base your recommendation whether it’s for the finding of fact, adoption or opinion whether it should be approved or denied.

Greg Moore – May I see that letter that was presumed we have?

Ben Casey – We’ll take a short recess while we get a copy of the letter made.

Ben Casey – Called the meeting back to order and announced Greg Moore was going to make a motion.

Greg Moore made a motion to table the item and request additional information any documents that can be provided to substantiate Scott Brazell’s conversations, John Peterson’s conversations and Billy Smith’s conversations in this matter to resolve the unresolved issues that they seem to have before us.

Matt Jordan – Can I respectfully ask that ya’ll take a vote on it tonight? We really need an answer tonight to give to the developer and if ya’ll feel that it’s not worthy of a variance that’s fine. It’s just gone to this point that we really need a vote and a decision tonight so it can go to the county commissioners meeting on the 15th. It’s got to go one way or the other by the 15th for the developer and if ya’ll feel ya’ll need more information vote however you feel you need to vote. If ya’ll could do that. We would like to show you, I mean I don’t know of any other information we have or if anybody else being here would help. We’ve been to public meetings. We’ve been trying to get a variance since last month. John was too busy with other things to get us on that one. We’ve been through a lot of loops with this and I keep seeing more like this. Other letters Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 6 of 13

from April 8th that was added to the pile from the City of St. Mary’s which I don’t know how they have a dog in the hunt. Peter Magoon stated he’s the (JLUS) Chairman of the Joint Land Use Study. He should have been sent a notice about it in April, October, November, and August when the other was done. We just need an answer on this so we can take it to the commissioners and let them decide and yea or nea. The developer has asked that it be done one way or another. We’ve been under, one more month, one more month, since October, haven’t we? Yes, October.

Joe Blaze – My concern with the drainage things. I have no problem if they take care of the problems with it.

Michael Bowick – They can’t do something to that property. Make a subdivision to where it’s going to affect your drainage ditch. They are going to be responsible.

Matt Jordan – The ones that would affect him would be the 25 acre lots.

Joe Blaze – I withdraw anything I said along as drainage is good. I’m happy.

Peter Magoon – That’s not what we’re talking about here. I don’t think and Mr. Myers, our County Attorney and Mr. Peterson, especially Mr. Myers. The developer is not going to be responsible for drainage. That is not in their area unless we can prove that it happened after they developed it. You said it happened after the timber got cut. Mr. Blaze, let me ask you a question. There’s a straight line forest road that goes from Colerain Road down HWY 40 behind The Meadows. Is that the drainage line that screwed up? Was that a drainage line all through there down by the Meadows?

County Attorney John Myers asked the Chairman if he had a second on the floor.

Chairman Casey asked if anyone would like to make a second on the motion.

Peter Magoon made a second on the motion for discussion.

Ben Casey – I think we should answer this tonight. There are already over 60 individual driveways on Colerain Road now and we’re talking about adding just a few more.

Matt Jordan – There’s actually 2 on the eastern portion and there will be I think a total of 9 with 3 of those being existing so I think a total of six lots sharing driveways. Two lots will be served by one driveway.

Ben Casey – My concern later on when those other lots are developed. You are going to have a lot more traffic than before those lots can be developed.

Peter Magoon – The reason I seconded the motion to table this is because Mr. Moore wants more information while I agree with that because we’re making acquisitions back and forth here. These people are saying and this one’s saying and their saying and so forth. Mr. Brazell is not here. Mr. Peterson said he was not whatever.

Matt Jordan – And we can withdraw that and you can decide based upon the merit of the information given. Like I said, this has been technically going on as Terrell said since October.

Terrell Brazell – We met with the county in July.

Peter Magoon – You say you met with the county in July Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 7 of 13

Terrell Brazell – We met with John first and John said you need to go meet with Scott Brazell so we go and meet with Scott Brazell and then we come back and meet with John then we go back and meet with Scott. It’s very inefficient and somewhere there was a mistake where unfamiliarity with the UDC which came in 2009. We were told that they were the guinea pigs. We met with the County Manager and were discussing amending some of these rules that caused some of the grief we were having trying to help streamline this. This is what happens when a developer comes to Camden County. This is what they deal with. This should be a streamlined process where it’s easy to do. Maybe not easy. If we had not of been told we could do it we wouldn’t be here asking for a variance because that’s not a good business model is to rely on the variance. The variance is what was suggested by John and Steve Howard to remedy the situation so that we could move forward and then we can start addressing the problems with the UDC later.

Ben Casey – I agree there are problems with the UDC.

Greg Moore – My issue with making a decision is I don’t know if I’m for it or against it because I have one side of the story. I consider Mr. Peterson the expert here in what we have to decide. If you have other experts like Billy Smith and Scott Brazell that you’ve gotten a different story from I would like to know what the other side of the coin is or what their perspective is.

Terrell Brazell – Chances of getting Mr. Smith here is very

Greg Moore – I know but if you could get a letter or something to clarify what you agreed to.

John Peterson – Mr. Chairman, if I could, we’ve spoken to Billy Smith and what Matt has presented tonight, what Terrell is talking about, DOT will allow those as driveways. Their way of looking at things is different than Camden County. They don’t consider anything over 5 acres as a subdivision so they have different rules that they look at. They have different requirements that they look at. The way it was put to me by Billy was that if we have an ordinance that is more stringent than we need to go ahead and we need to tell them that this is the requirement and pass that on to them for approval. What they are saying tonight is what they want to do is they want to be able to get to the point where they can ask DOT for approval and DOT is not opposed to the curb cuts where they have proposed them and I know that. Matt has told me that. I know that from past conversations with Billy Smith. Just to clarify that so we don’t have to go any further with that. The only thing and I can’t give to you verbatim of any conversations that I’ve had with these gentlemen or that they’ve had with me and I certainly can’t tell you what has occurred with them and Scott conversation wise either. So, from the point of conversations, about all I could do is furnish to you timelines and emails that we have had with them over a period of time. I think they have told me that they have had this conversation with the former Public Works Director. They provided the information tonight for that. I believe they’ve had that conversation. I don’t know what took place in that conversation but apparently are representing tonight that they were told to move forward with the idea that they could have curb cuts along this roadway.

Terrell Brazell – Move forward from the point of that conversation up until the point of December 17th, some 60 days after Planning & Building had copies of this to review so there was a 60 day. My whole thing was if you can’t divide off of that road, it’s simple as cut and dry, it’s over. I can’t understand why it took so long to get the answer that you can’t do it. That’s what’s been the heartburn I’ve had with it. It’s just that cut and dry and it’s in the UDC, it should have been. Hey, look you can’t do anything out there.

Matt Jordan – We should have been told early on. We would not have asked for a variance for it. There was a lot of planning and money spent for it, time surveying. I don’t know if you’ve hired a surveyor lately but they are kind of expensive. Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 8 of 13

Peter Magoon – I work for one, I know.

Greg Moore – What is your best guess as to why it took so long?

Terrell Brazell – I have no guess.

Peter Magoon – I personally don’t think that is the conversation tonight of why this, that and so forth.

Michael Bowick – I agree the UDC has to be streamlined and corrected.

Matt Jordan – Terrell alluded to something. This has left a bad taste in this developer’s mouth. I can tell you that. They purchased 2 or 3 other existing subdivisions in the county. I’m talking large lot subdivisions and am doing a lot of building in the county. It’s just one of those things they’re not the only one we deal with either. It’s scary to them, we say hey, we can get you a clear answer and we can get it fairly quickly, decisively before enough. This is supposed to be the easy subdivision compared to what they are doing. The one we thought we would have problems with would be the 25 acres on the dirt road. That one was the easy one then this one came up. Hey, we’ll just do that one, it’s no problem and then in December we find a problem with the other one.

Peter Magoon – So what do you want to do? Are you satisfied? I can withdraw my second.

Greg Moore – I can withdraw my motion and somebody else can make a new motion.

Michael Bowick – Since ya’ll are going to withdraw ya’lls. I make a motion to accept the special variance. Seconded by Greg Moore.

Discussion

Peter Magoon – I against this for 2 reasons. #1 is the driveways. Colerain is going to be reclassified from a major collector to a minor arterial terminology and is going to be added to the National Highway System. Also, by this packet we have, I believe we all have this, it shows that GDOT will do a flyover all the way east of 17 from Martin Luther King Blvd to somewhere on Colerain. I’m not exactly sure where it’s going to come back into Colerain. It’s going to bypass all driveways and all these houses that are there. Ms. Hollingsworth, I think you were talking about all of this. I don’t know what’s going to happen and that’s not why we are here. I remember the horror story of Hurricane Floyd when this county tried to evacuate. I actually drove out there and drove right back and we left at 4:00 a.m. and got to Waycross in an hour as usual instead of the 9 hours. This is long overdue trying to evacuate Camden County because we will get hit by another storm someday. Even 2 more driveways to me, we shouldn’t have them. The second reason I’m against this is the unpaved roads. Mr. Myers is there any verbiage on the plat that it will never ever be subdivided?

John Myers – They’ve already indicated that that’s bearing on there. Theirs is a bug that you put on the plats that says that there will be no other subdivisions that this is not being sold for any further division of this property. So if that is on the plat and it’s duly recorded then there’s your answer.

Peter Magoon – What about the lots all the way in the back? RLF owns a lot of property here between the forestry roads to the east and out Colerain Road and HWY 40; they own a lot of acreage. Are they going to be able to tie those in? They have to be able to come back for a variance. Is that right? Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 9 of 13

Matt Jordan – They are already subdivided. They have already been approved for platting. They are 25 acre and up lots.

Ben Casey – From what I understand, these lots back in here, from what I saw you cannot divide them any further unless they pave the roads.

Matt Jordan – Correct.

Peter Magoon – Where is there access and egress and so forth? Onto 40?

Matt James – There is an access at 40 here Colerain here and Colerain here. This is an existing forest road that they’ve got an easement on and all these lots run into forest road and they have access at 3 points.

Peter Magoon – When you were talking to me earlier about number of cars per day, did you add in the lots to basically the south? These RLF lots?

John Peterson – The requirements basically as generally a vehicle trip per day is about 10 vehicle trips per day per household is what you figure for an occupied household so when this is fully developed with 24 lots you can figure that they’ve got about 240 vehicle trips per day. The average coming out of the subdivision from 2 different access points so and I realize they don’t all go the same way. They will probably go down the better dirt road whichever that is but at 120 vehicle trips per day down these dirt roads, that’s not a lot of traffic. Not ever enough to require a decel lane. Not even by our standards nor by DOT standards so it’s not a whole lot of vehicle trips.

Greg Moore – What happens if the Homeowners Association doesn’t renew and it subsequently dissolves. How would that affect the road? What would become of that road?

John Myers – Well, we have a lot of that in Camden County.

Peter Magoon – My subdivision Runnymede. Yep.

John Myers – The issue is, do the new owners step up and take care of the road? Do they try to dedicate it to the county?

Michael Bowick – The County doesn’t want to take it though.

Peter Magoon – No, speaking of Runnymede on my plat. This was in 1994-95. The county will not take this road so we don’t even go to the county and try to get them to take it. We fix it ourselves. We just put in $11,000 to have Ellis & Ellis to come out and do some patch work and this amount of road here would be a lot more money than that.

John Myers – The UDC does address the requirement of mandatory Home Owners Association for maintenance of non-dedicated roads so that’s one of the features that’s been built in going forward.

Peter Magoon – They would come under that?

John Myers – The 10-lot subdivisions are subject to that but not the big ones.

Peter Magoon – But that is a question that has come up in Camden County many times in Camden County and elsewhere, I’m sure. I own a road. I don’t want to own a road but I do. I still Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 10 of 13

fill that if we do this we are going to be setting precedence. Especially the dirt road. The unpaved road. I don’t know. I don’t have a good feeling about that. Mr. Myers, again, there can be verbiage on the plat that says these lots can never be subdivided and it will never be paved.

John Myers – I going to defer to Mr. Peterson. He has something to say.

John Peterson – The thing that I want to make clear is the 2 first subdivisions with this being the first one and the next one we’re going to talk about briefly although, we have to take it up as the next item. Both of these have estate subdivision plots in them because they both have the estate subdivision lots as recombination’s they will still require that wording to be on those plats. That wording will not have to be on the lot for plat 1 because it is being divided up differently and has existing curb cuts along the former lot 1 estate subdivision lot 1 that is proposed to be divided up into 6 lots with 5 of those to go to existing driveways as common or dual access driveways from the lots with one of them going off the unpaved road. Those do not require that same verbiage but as I said before those 25 acre lots and I would suspect the recombination of lots although I don’t know that will probably have the same requirements on them for the unpaved streets and the maintenance of the unpaved streets as they front on those. You’re recombing lots 12 and 16 to create 2 10-lot split lots. So those are 10 smaller but they are still estate subdivision lots meaning that there same minimum requirements. So they would be subject I would think to that same requirement.

Matt Jordan – As far as what I’ve read in the UDC, yes. Every bit of that is controlled by the UDC as far as once you do an estate subdivision you can only subdivide under certain circumstances

John Peterson – But how the maintenance is handled, they are still a party to that even though the lots are called something different now with a proposed re-division or recombination of those lots. So I hope that helps.

Peter Magoon – I’ve seen this verbiage that’s going to go on the plats and that’s fine.

Ben Casey – Alright, we’ve got a motion and a second. All in favor? 3 yea, 1 nea

Ben Casey - Yea Michael Bowick Yea Greg Moore - Yea Peter Magoon - Nea

2) Special Exception Variance – ZV-2014-3 – Matt Jordan representing RLF Kingsland Properties, LLC, is requesting variances from UDC Sec. 1303. (b) (5) Public Street Frontage, to allow a 4 lot Minor Subdivision “Ten-lot Split”, and a recombination of RLF Kingsland Estate Subdivision Lots # 3 & 6 into 2 smaller Estate Subdivision lots as proposed. RLF Kingsland Estate Subdivision Lots # 3 & 6 are shown on Tax Map 070C Parcels 003 and 006, Zoned A-F (General agricultural – forestry district), with the Future Land Use Map shown as “Residential”.

John Peterson presented the staff recommendation.

Ben Casey – This is a Public Hearing. Does anyone wish to speak in favor of this? Have ya’ll spoken to that other property owner yet?

Matt Jordan – We have not. The reason being, I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. If this action works, it works. If it doesn’t, it will be combined. The owners fine with combining this other lot. I didn’t want to get him stirred up for no reason until you guys and the commissioners made a final decision. Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 11 of 13

Ben Casey – Anybody wish to speak in opposition of this?

Citizen - I want to speak in opposition. You guys said something about problems with the drainage that were done before. I’m not saying anything about that. My concern is don’t do any more damage. Somebody made comment about they can’t fix what was already done. That’s not my concern. My concern is I can’t handle any more. I just want to make sure that’s clear. Not necessarily any opposition. I just can’t handle any more, ok.

Ben Casey – Anybody else? Does anybody wish to make a motion on this?

Michael Bowick – I make a motion to accept this special variance as recommended or as listed.

Ben Casey – Anybody wish to second? Any discussion?

Greg Moore – I’ll second. And for discussion I will for the record speak that I don’t know who owns Morris Tate’s that their not relation to me nor do I know them.

Ben Casey – I would like to have it on record if whoever owns the Morris Tate’s doesn’t approve the access that ya’ll do combine those 2 lots.

Matt Jordan – Like I said. That will have to be discussed with Harvey Amerson. Harvey will have final approval over the driveway locations and that lot just won’t have a driveway so it couldn’t be accessed.

Ben Casey – All in favor.

Ben Casey - Yea Michael Bowick Yea Greg Moore Yea Peter Magoon - Nea

3) Special Exception Variance – ZV-2014-4 – Matt Jordan, representing RLF Kingsland Properties, LLC, is requesting a variance from UDC Sec. 1303. (b) (5) Public Street Frontage, to allow a 6 lot Minor Subdivision “Ten-lot Split” of RLF Kingsland Estate Subdivision of Lot #1, as proposed. RLF Kingsland Estate Subdivision Lot # 1 is shown on Tax Map 070C Parcels 001, Zoned A-F (General agricultural – forestry district), with the Future Land Use Map shown as “Residential”. M.B. Motion/2nd to Approve3-1.

John Peterson presented the staff recommendation.

Michael Bowick – So basically, we’re not adding any additional driveways?

Peter Magoon – But they are not there now though. Those driveways are just on the plat. That’s all. They are not there.

Matt Jordan – They are 3 existing driveways.

Peter Magoon – But they are not in use are they?

Matt Jordan – They are no lots there.

Peter Magoon – There are no houses there. Like Mr. Blaze. No, you’re going to be adding those Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 12 of 13

driveways.

Michael Bowick – Is that a ditch that runs right there? Right there off Colerain? In between those lots?

Terrell Brazell – Oh no, that’s a power line easement and the City of Kingsland has a water easement. You’re talking about right there on the lot 8?

Michael Bowick – No, right up here on the top here.

Terrell Brazell – The dash line just represents the ROW on the other side of the road. There is a ditch along the southern and northern side of the roadway.

Michael Bowick – So you said this roads there. There’s no culverts going across the ditch?

Terrell Brazell – I think there’s culverts there aren’t they.

Michael Bowick – See if there are culverts there, then they are already access out there. So pretty much they are going to be moving the culverts.

John Peterson – I think they are 2 culverts. I think Georgia Power is just a drive over the edge of the roadway.

Michael Bowick – So there is access to Colerain Road from those lots. There are culverts down there. They are just not used.

John Peterson – They are 2 existing driveways there and what they are proposing to do is to just move those a few hundred feet so that they better serve 2 lots rather than one.

Michael Bowick – It’s just Woods Road that we have the variance pretty much.

John Peterson – Yes sir.

Greg Moore – What would legally preclude them from just adding 2 and keeping the existing 2?

Matt Jordan – DOT widths. 350’. Actually, we have the width. When we designed this we tried to keep access to a minimum also by sharing common driveways and that was the reason.

Ben Casey – Does anybody wish to speak in favor of this? In opposition? Can we get a motion?

Michael Bowick – I make a motion to accept this variance. Seconded by Ben Casey.

Ben Casey – Any discussion? All in favor? Ben Casey - Yea Michael Bowick Yea Greg Moore - Yea Peter Magoon- Nea

4) Future Land Use Map Amendment –FLU-2014-01 - David & Noel Brigmond are requesting a Future Land Use Map Amendment from “Residential” to “Rural” shown as 99 Acres of land, proposed for a farming use, located at the Western end of West Elizabeth Street, Kingsland, Ga. The Property is located on Tax Map #082, Parcel #26, with the Zoning shown as R-1, single- family residential on the Zoning Map. P.M. Motion/2nd G.M.to Approve 4-0. Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, April 9, 2014, 6:00 PM Page 13 of 13

The reason for the proposed FLU map amendment request is to allow consistency that’s needed in order to zone from R-1 to A-F as required by the UDC excerpts of FLU maps and also the soils maps for this area that show the property is split not only by Georgia Power easement but also by a good deal of drainage way that goes directly through the property.

5) Rezoning –RZ-2014-01 - David & Noel Brigmond are requesting a rezoning from R-1 Residential to A-F (Agricultural – Forestry) of 99 Acres of land, proposed for a farming use, located at the Western end of West Elizabeth Street, Kingsland, Ga. The Future Land Use Map shows the property as “Residential”. The Property is located on Tax Map #082, Parcel #26. P.M. Motion/2nd G.M.to Approve 4-0.

Ben Casey – You need to be at the Board of Commissioners meeting April 15th.

I) OTHER BUSINESS: None.

J) ADJOURNMENT

Michael Bowick – I make a motion to adjourn, seconded by Greg Moore.

Ben Casey – All in favor? Ben Casey - Yea Michael Bowick Yea Greg Moore - Yea Peter Magoon- Yea