{With my head bowed and shaking "no"}

Say it ain't so. OK Eric Maxwell... If you're ultimate goal is to become the State Court Judge when they split the circuit while hosing the taxpayers with an added tax burden then I suggest you uphold our Land Use Laws rather than aborting them. If this is the trend you and Jack intend to set then hang on boys..... You're gonna become as resented as Dunn, Wells, & Burrell.

Good job on this one Pfeifer & Horgan.

Hang loose LawBelowAll.... Before you attempt to cut loose on me just stow it. Remember...Git's more than a single issue voter.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

This is scary. We agree, but seriously, you think I enjoy seeing these things happen?

I hate to see the very things that I saw during the campaign come to pass. I have tried to point out much of this because, if there is sufficient public outcry, perhaps these guys will take notice.

I guess you are right. I am a single issue voter. My issue is, keeping taxes as low as possible, oh, and adhering to the land use plan, and almost forgot, not making personnel decisions based strictly on political payback, darn, almost left out not exposing the voting process to federal scrutiny while protecting one's electability, and before I forget too, accountablity of all constitutional officers to the voters. Yep,that's me....one issue.

At this rate, by the election next year, we may be in near total accord. Hey, it could happen.

By the way, I just noticed (again) your Scott Ballard tag line.
You do know who the campaign chairman for Scott's reelection campaign is do you not?

It appears I jumped the gun on the rezoning issue. I'll kick back a bit for now give them the benefit of the doubt on the Land Use Plan. Who knows..... in the end they might wind up ignoring it. I hope not.

not making personnel decisions based strictly on political payback,

Hey, Let's deal with this one first. What say you about this?

CLICK HERE To View What LawBelowAll Chooses To Ignore And Deny

As for Eric Maxwell being the Campaign Chairman for a District Attorney who is soft on crime, brags about his efficiency in disposing of cases (cutting stinky plea deals that puts the bad guys back on the streets in a rapid manner)and coddles child molesters I have to admit that causes me great concern about his priorities. Shall I get into a few of the questionable alliances that your guys have bedded down with in the past?

BTW... I though SWMBO was going to set me straight on this whole McNally thing. Where did she go? I miss her.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

the land use plan calls for 1 acre in that area, Git.

And you mention 'hosing the taxpayers with an added tax burden' which makes me wonder, you xpect these hew homeowners won't pay any taxes?

the land use plan calls for 1 acre in that area, Git.

If that is true Tonto then I joyfully stand corrected. My understanding is that for the most part the land north of Hwy 54 was planned for 1 acre lots. I understand that there are still areas that are zoned A-R for 5 acre lots. I also understand what you just said about the land use plan allowing them to rezone to R-45. I understand the land use plan and how it controls our maximum population, build-out and density. If that's the case then I am OK with this rezoning issue. 39 acres divided by 22 lots equal 1.77 acres. Not bad for an area that was planned for 1 acre lots.

Sooo... as a Land Use Advocate then perhaps Peter's opposition to the plan in this case could possibly be perceived as "political posturing".

And you mention 'hosing the taxpayers with an added tax burden' which makes me wonder, you pct these hew homeowners won't pay any taxes?

Oops. Sorry. I did not mean for it to imply that this development, or the homeowners, would "hose the taxpayers". I was referring to two separate "bads". The first, that we were abandoning the Land Use Plan. And secondly, that the taxpayers were getting hosed with another tax increase via the new budget. Respectfully sir, I stand by the second one.

I just wish I knew completely what I was getting hosed for?

Guess I'm going to have to go down "there" and say Hey! I'm Git and I wanna spend a couple of days worming my way through the budget.

Tonto, Do you think the commissioners would be kind enough to put the budget online?

As a parting after thought, I sure hope that the commission maintains the A-R zoning in the Southern part of the county. People need to understand that the land use plan in that area is addressing more than density and population issues. It is also addressing environmental and traffic concerns. This area was also set aside (zoned more sparsely) for the rejuvenation of our ground water system. Please keep that in mind folks.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

your concerns were well placed, high density is what we don't want, but this particular zoning was a no brainer.

And Git, you're usually right on.

That when you run your mouth as much as I do, you're going to get one wrong every now-and-then.

Like my ole Pappy always says: "If you don't make a mistake every now-and-then, then you ain't a doin' nothin' at all".

Speaking of lawsuits... What would have happened if they wouldn't have abided by the Land Use Plan?

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

in this area. But in reality, it wouldn't surprise me if everything north of 54 went this way. It could be MUCH worse.

Git,
I'm glad you're not the developer.

39 divided by 22 = 1.77, but that can't be the lot size.
You forgot about the streets. LOL

Touche! What is this? Git Git Day? LOL!

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

If the original plan only called for 1 acre, why did they have to get it re-zoned? We don't need more 1 acre sub-divisions.

to overwhelm you here, but a 'land use plan' and 'zoning' are two different animals.

In 1987 the county undertook, pursuant to a state mandate, to develop a plan for future use of land within the county borders. A plan was adopted at that time, but no zoning changes occurred as a result of adopting the plan.

In the particular area at issue, the plan called for 1 to 2 acre zoning. The commission did virtually that in allowing 22 lots on 39 acres, if you take into account that 'lot size averaging' is an accepted principle in zoning.

Be prepared for a quiz on Friday.

but....the land in question was zoned agricultural-residential which means minimum 5 acre lots.

Why would we put forth a "land use plan" that violates our current laws and zoning at the time? What fool would propose a "land use plan" of 1 acre or less when the land in question is zoned for 5 acres or more???(per the article above) Who is the knucklehead that put together that faulty "land use plan"????

That land in the original Fayette County plans was zoned 5 acres or more. What changed besides the greed of a few developers??

Ps: this is a popup quiz, to be used in place of Friday's quiz.

He is having trouble justifying this kind of reckless action by the Board of Commissioners, but he gave it his best shot.

This is a tough one because, if the land use plan called for 1-2 acre lots (I assume this is accurate)then they adhered to the land use plan. However, there is a concept called "step-down" zoning which would have been useful here.

The commission could have held to a 2 acre minimum, limited (on the lower side) the size of the homes to be built and probably made everybody happy. By going from 5 down to 1 acre and allowing the maximum number of lots, they set a very dangerous precedent and "domino" effect for the AR zoned areas around them. This is a developers dream.

If you approve this type of zoning here, then any time similar situation occurs anywhere in the county, refusal of the zoning change can (and usually does) result in a lawsuit.

The county has been very successful in defending the land use plan in court in the past because they avoided this type of scenario.

This is a recipe for disaster.

Despite what you might think Tonto, I take no joy in seeing the very things I feared about electing these people come to pass.

I applaud Peter for being consistent in his approach to these matters, and I appreciate Robert's vote, even if it is motivated by his desire to be re-elected more than concern for the citizens involved.

Janet, did it bother you when Greg voted to do the same thing on the Cathey property on Redwine Road. I don't recall you whining about that. According to that commission, lot size averaging was appropriate.

Domino effect? BS, every zoning stands on it's own.

I am not Janet Dunn and I did not say anything about lot averaging.

Secondly, the Cathey property is not surrounded by AR.

Thirdly, if you seriously believe that each zoning stands on its' own then you do not understand the process.

There is a concept called "legal precedent", which attorneys love to invoke to suit their needs. That is precisely why each zoning decision must be made in the context of the property in question and the plan as a whole. When they are not, the plan is ripe for legal challenge. Eric should have known that. If he didn't too bad, but if he did and still voted this way, then I am not suprised.

I have no idea what Jack Smith was thinking here, but Frady has taken this approach for years.

Your argument is not grounded in discussing the impact here. You still hung up on the dispute between Dunn and the Sheriff. That is over. Look at this situation on it's own merits.

say anything about lot size averaging, I DID. It works when some commissioners want it to, and it worked with the Cathey property. Which, by the way, was 'surrounded' by A-R until it was all rezoned
to 1 to 2 acres.

Your implication that the McGregor property is 'surrounded' by A-R is false, Franklin Farms is just across the street, 1 acre lots. That would be the precedent if in fact it came down to a lawsuit for zoning.

The zoning allowed was not inconsistent with the land use plan or the pre-existing zoning in the area.

And yes I understand the process, I sat on committees that developed our land use plan some 20 years ago.