Discussing developments, impact fees, and financial costs
News January 18, 2022
ELLIJAY, Ga. – Gilmer’s Commissioners are still discussing developments in the county as citizens and business continue the debate of Gilmer’s future including a topic of impact fees. With developments increasing, some groups like Keep Gilmer Rural are still pushing hard in the county to increase restrictions for incoming developers looking to build 1000 unit properties and similar issues.
When Chairman Charlie Paris broached the subject, he questioned impact and infrastructure as the common issue the county as a whole faces with some higher-density developments. Paris spoke on needs like new fire stations and increased staff for public safety departments as well as new roads, traffic, and connections to be built and maintained.
The idea for regulations and ordinances requiring developers to provide assistance for these needs was also questioned by Paris.
Specifying impact fees is the obvious first concept for this, but Paris looked further at requiring land to be dedicated for fire stations or road widening or other additions.
Post Commissioner Hubert Parker agreed that the taxpayers should not shoulder the immediate costs of these massive developments. Post Commissioner Karleen Ferguson said, “I am for impact fees and have been for a long time.”
Public Works Director Jim Smith also agreed saying that he understood that impact fees are generally frowned upon but he felt that any developer coming into town and making as much money as they do on their developments should participate in the building up of the necessary infrastructure/ Smith stated, “It is nothing but fair that they participate on the front end and the existing taxpayer is not burdened with the requirement to build that infrastructure for them.”
Discussion continued on how to engage such judgments. A case by case basis was proposed, but later spoken against as potentially having a perception of unfairness to one entity or another. Another thought of presetting certain lot number limits to tiers of impact fees could be a possibility. Citizens are questioning those developers who would max out the possible lots numbers before hitting next tiers to avoid those higher fees and then immediately building an additional subdivision nearby as a separate project that they will eventually join together.
Fire Chief Daniel Kauffman commented on the topic saying that fire and rescue infrastructure do benefit from impact fees. He also stated that he had experience with such things in a previous job.
Fire Chief Daniel Kauffman speaks to Gilmer’s Board of Commissioners during the January Worksession.
Eventually, the board decided to look further into the issue via committee to return with investigations and better information to include local developers as well as citizens and others with possible special insight. No specifics have been set into who would be on the board aside from an agreement among the BOC that local developers would need to have representation.
Smith told the commissioners that impact fees could be imposed in different ways including partial fees or full coverage, split amongst the developer or other parties. Paris said his idea would have the fees imposed on the developers without affecting builders who build in the project.
The board also received questions and comments during their regular meeting after tabling the agenda item. The board members explained that they were looking deeper into the topic and will hold the agenda item as a discussion topic in future meetings so they may continue looking at the topic, discussing, and developing both a committee and the possibility of actually implementing impact fees in some manner in the future.
Some even called for the board to extend the current moratorium to aid in continued discussion. However, Chairman Paris said he said when the board established the moratorium that he wouldn’t ask to extend it and he wanted to stick to his promise.
Gilmer revisiting Comprehensive Plan amid studies
News November 30, 2021
ELLIJAY, Ga. – Expecting no effect on the timeline of the previous moratorium, Gilmer is continuing its process along the debate of Gilmer’s population and density. A widespread topic encompassing large developments, apartment buildings, affordable housing, lot sizes, lot numbers, the comprehensive plan and the moratorium on certain developments, the debate has gone on for some time as both citizens and leaders are looking for possible answers.
Today’s step in the process approved an early revisit to the county’s comprehensive plan. Commission Chairman Charlie Paris noted that the county isn’t scheduled to revisit the plan for another three years. However, the suggestion of an early revisit came as the county is looking at studies and impacts of population and density within the county.
The studies were a major part of the reasoning for the moratorium originally, and as the county continues those, it hopes to revisit and adjust the document accordingly to provide a better guide towards zoning request they see likely to arise. Paris also noted a need for three new zones in the county.
Affordable housing has proven a touchy subject for many in the county as has been seen in the commissioners meetings even when major rezonings or land use topics weren’t on the agenda. Groups like Keep Gilmer Rural have also helped continue discussions on the topic over the months. In many of those meetings and discussions, citizens reference the comprehensive plan and the direction the county is headed.
Now, the hope for the current revisit is touching specific subjects, the board indicated that it didn’t believe a complete redo of the plan was necessary but would rather confirm, change, clarify, or readjust those specific topics.
The discussion among the board indicated that while they may not get the exact same people that were on committees last time, they are hoping to have the same representation. With community response high last time, the board is just as eager to get a balanced sample of the community providing insight and input from all corners and ideals.
They have already begun discussion over the topic with Post Commissioner Hubert Parker questioning if certain groups such as farmers were included. While Post Commissioner Karleen Ferguson, who was very involved in the last revisit, assured Parker that specifically farmers were included, she agreed that there could be some new people in the county with particular interest in the plan and the county’s direction.
A new change that was discussed among the Board of Commissioners came as Chairman Paris requested that the board as a whole step back from the plan and be less involved than they previously were. He stated concerns over perception of any commissioner being involved in the plan’s development saying that he didn’t want it to appear that the board was attempting any sort of “spin” on the plan.
Paris stated, “We’re going to be listening to a lot of very contentious rezoning requests over the next year.”
He noted that many people adamantly hold their own opinions on both sides and if the board members can abstain from the committees themselves, it could assuage any perceptions that the board as a whole had any opportunity to “stack the deck.”
Reasserting his desire to avoid any possible contentions, accusations, or ideas of any bias or manipulation due to anything perceived, Paris went on to say, “Perception is everything.”
While no hard schedule was set into the approval, some discussion on the impact this revisit could have on the six month moratorium indicated that the board is hoping to have the revisit completed somewhere close to the next three to four months. This would mean the board is hoping for a quick set up and turnaround for its committees. Paris also noted he wants the plan to become a current, up-to-date, plan for the commissioners to use as a citizen created guidepost into the future.
A unanimous decision supported the revisit and the county is moving forward with the process in December.
February will decide the moratorium, ordinance, and future of Gilmer’s large developments
News February 3, 2021
ELLIJAY, Ga. – As Gilmer’s Commissioners continue working on limiting and controlling growing sizes and numbers of developments in the county through its ordinance, they received the other side of the moratorium’s effects when a Special Called Meeting saw a large group of developers seeking information about the future of their work.
With lot size minimums looking to increase, current lots smaller than the minimum would be grandfathered in. Some comments in the meeting revolved around these increases with one speaker, Develle Frady, asking about a parent looking to split their land and give a piece to their child to build on. He said this would hurt some of those people working hard all their life to cut some land and leave it to kids.
Frady said the changes wouldn’t stop growth, but rather create more class division.
Crystal Chastain spoke in the meeting as well asking to support some more of the developments. While she said she the county needs to control growth and it does need to grow, she wanted the county to put off the vote for the ordinance changes advertisement to look deeper into the topic. She said the county needs “affordable workforce housing.” Something that could be accomplished through developments.
Crystal Chastain speaks to the BOC about her opinions and requests for the county’s Land Use Ordinance in a meeting on January 29, 2021.
Post Commissioner Karleen Ferguson agreed saying she has been thinking about the affordable housing. She said she and the board is trying to balance the issue and she was thinking on a half acre increase and what it would do to affordability. It is something she has worked on in previous positions as well. She promised Crystal that the board is considering the issues saying, “We’re working on it.”
Much of the discussion centered on lot size changes and the effect the changes will have on citizens and the county. Other commenters repeated asking the commissioners to delay and look closer at what consequences and effects the changes may cause.
The meeting also saw minor confusion on the exact changes as the county continues to work on the issue. It has yet to formally approve anything on the Land Use Ordinance, and, in fact, it remains in unfinished business on their agendas as the county once again pushed back approving advertisement of the changes in favor of continuing talks with the community. Some of the confusion in the community has come from exactly this reason, the county has had two separate meetings with numerous speakers both for and against the changes being discussed. As new changes and adjustments are made at every meeting, the county is constantly changing the proposed ordinances to keep pace with citizens comments.
Keith Sumner, a local builder in Gilmer, debates the Land Use Ordinance and its effects on citizens.
Commission Chairman Charlie Paris said during the meeting that if they were to have voted on something that day, it would only have been to advertise changes.
To make these changes, the county must go first approve an official advertisement of the changes, hold an official public comments meeting, then approve the changes once during a monthly meeting, then approve changes a second time during the following meeting for final adoption of those changes. After all of January with its work session, regular meeting, and a special called meeting, the county has yet to take its first official step in making these changes to the ordinance.
Instead, with some commenters in the meeting asking the county to look again and one asking to wait and see if the market changes soon, they are once again tabling the discussion to possibly adjust the changes once more and consider advertising again in February. Pushing the item back is creating an issue with the county’s moratorium in place and set to expire in a few months. The County Attorney David Clark suggested the board consider this alongside their motion to table the discussion. He asked that if the commissioner continue pushing the vote back, they discuss lifting the moratorium. He said it could be unfair to developers to continue the moratorium indefinitely if the ordinance change discussions continued too much longer.
Clark said, “I’d encourage you not to extend the moratorium.”
Clark also warned that he felt like much of the current discussion focused on lot sizes, but there could be more “nuts and bolts” in the changes that could come to light after the lot sizes.
Other issues the county is considering includes road quality and zoning labels among others.
Ferguson requested a joint meeting between the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission to further discuss the Land Ordinance. Paris agreed saying that he also wanted some representation from the Builders Association and a few other associations at the meeting to include their input as well.
That joint meeting has officially been published for Monday, February 8, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. in the Jury Assembly Room of the Gilmer County Courthouse. It will prove to be a busy week for the county as this meeting comes only two days before their February Work Session on February 10, 2021, at 9 a.m. and the Regular Meeting on February 11, 2021, at 6 p.m., both at the same location.
The county is also going to obtain information from other neighboring counties on the topic from the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (NWGRC).
Commissioners adopt Moratorium on Greenspace subdivision roads
News September 15, 2020
ELLIJAY, Ga. – Originally considered for Class D and Class E roads, Gilmer’s Board of Commissioners is placing a moratorium on green space subdivisions as they work on details before planning to release the moratorium with a modified ordinance in early 2021.
According to Planning and Zoning Director Karen Henson, Gilmer has a couple subdivision projects currently approved in R2 that are abiding by lot sizes. However, the concern is if these lots are sold and then divided and resold. Class E Roads are only allowed to have 10 lots on them. The county will be looking at options to prevent such a process that would ultimately result in an larger number or lots on roads that cannot support them.
Discussion of the agenda item saw more focus on the moniker of “inferior roads” and right of ways than specific Class E roads. However, Henson indicated in the meeting that all Class E designated roads would be considered a part of the moratorium and later clarified as such.
As approved in the meeting, Henson herself clarified in an email that the Moratorium will be for:
-
The suspension of Class E roads.
-
The suspension of subdivisions of land along inferior County roads, which are roads with less than 40 foot right of way and 20 foot surface width with 3 foot shoulders (except for the 2 annual splits).
-
The suspension of greenspace developments.
During the meeting, with advice from Henson and County Attorney David Clark, the Board is setting the moratorium to take effect later, and will begin the process of the ordinance change that will take several months to complete through advertising, First Reading, a Public Hearing, and a Second Reading with Final Adoption.
As contractors move into the moratorium, it will not shut down developments in areas as it was stated that they can continue developments with upgraded road systems. It will not affect Class D roads in general unless they fall into the county termed “inferior roads.”