An impromptu “Town Hall” meeting was held February 22, 2005, arranged by District 2 Commissioner Brian Tam, to discuss two options for the Mathis Airport Road extension from Brookwood Road.

A vote will be made during the March 14, 2005 BOC meeting to either approve or deny the “original plan”. In so doing, should the BOC vote to deny they will be in turn voting for the S curve plan.

Brief descriptions of the plans follow:

The original plan

This plan, approved by the county engineering, purchasing, and planning departments, is for a straight line road connecting Brookwood to Mathis Airport Road (MAR) just behind, on the east property lines, of Hunters Run Subdivision. This plan effects a few homeowners in Hunters run as well as 3 residents outside of Hunters Run.

The county has spent approximately $36K to acquire right of ways from residents and will proceed with acquiring the remainder of the property from the owner, Dewey White, should the vote go in favor of the “straight line” approach. The county is in litigation to condemn Mr. White’s property and claim imminent domain over the property. It was said that Mr. White will fight this claim and ask the county to pay top dollar for the property.

The S curve Plan

The plan, brought to the county by Dewey White over 3 years ago, is an S curve originating at the same point as the “original plan” however it’s course winds through Mr. White’s property and runs on the west property lines of Hunters Run Residents and then in front of the subdivision terminating at or near the current intersection of Bagley Road and MAR. This plan affects many more residents of Hunters Run in addition to changing the entrance to the subdivision to a 4 lane road on a bend in the road.

The county will be “donated” the land for this option by Mr. White. Mr. White and Beaser Homes will build 2 of the 4 lanes of the road. The county has estimated this will save them $1.4 million dollars in construction costs.

In return, the county was to regard with favor proposed zonings to either side of Bridle Ridge subdivision, and for a community that will be created when the S curve is developed. This proposed residential use of the White property would be developed into 701 homes with a mixture of Res. 3, Res. 4 and Res. 6. All units will be single family, there will be town homes.

The county could not put a cost on the infrastructure, traffic, or other resource/impacts that would be incurred with this plan.

The County indicated that should they choose this plan, Mr. White will purchase his sewer rights from Dick’s Creek Sewage Plant infusing up to $2.5 million dollars into the failing structure over the next few years. The County, however, acknowledged that there were multiple unresolved issues with the plant, its capacity and the amount of sewer rights available to be sold which were not discussed at this meeting.

The County acknowledged that while it would appear that Mr. White was purchasing favor with the Board for zoning decisions, no flexibility or negotiating room would be sacrificed with approval of the plan. The BOC would retain its full rights to deny zonings as per the UDC.

Other noted discussions:

The residents in attendance at the Town Hall meeting were generally cynical in the belief that the county will not show favor to Mr. White should he donate all this property and build 2 lanes of the 4 lane road. The county attorney, Ken Jarrard, reiterated on several occasions that the county will not be passing zonings for Mr. White’s other properties as a part of the S alignment.

A resident asked why the County was intent on approving another 700 homes when they already have acknowledged a problem meeting the demands of the 33,000 homes already approved but not built. The answer provided was that the homes would be partially designed for seniors to reduce the schools burden.

Safety was a topic of discussion. The engineering department said the road will be designed for 45 mph traffic. Access to all developments along the road way will have to have a 660’ cut in the median, with left turn lanes installed. The median will be 20’ wide.

It was mentioned that Mr. White is trying to sell commercial property for residential use at commercial cost. This drives the property to be high density (multi family or other).

The county is made up of 80% residential use to 20% commercial use. The goal is to have 60% residential and 40% commercial to create a rich, sustainable tax base.

A resident asked the county where the $1.5M that Mr. White paid to the Dicks Creek Sewage plant for capacity rights in the past had gone. It is believed that this was intended for infrastructure of the plant, and to be put in a system for distribution of the effluent, known as the “White system” which was never constructed. The county responded that they were not part of those private contracts and id not know.

A request was made for a financial comparison between for the projected infrastructure costs for the S alignment of the road and the current straight line plan. The response was that this is an on going investigation and that a lot of time and energy has been put into discussions and it is very complex. The County stated that such a comparative study would not be available by the 14 March decision meeting.

Asked if the S alignment is adopted, what will happen to the properties that have already been acquired by the county for the original design, Mr. Jarrard responded that there is a mechanism to give the property back to the original owners.

Asked what sense it makes to have a 4 lane road terminate into a 2 lane road. The answer was that the widening of 141 is to be let by the state in October ’05 although the County acknowledged that only 65% of the property for this has been acquired by the state thus far. It is estimated the 141 expansion will take 2 years. It was said that the S curve would take approximately 1.5 years to construct.

A resident asked if the size of the home project would trigger a DRI and the County replied it did not know, but was well aware of the State loophole and how developers have exploited it thus far.

Mr. Tam would like to hold another Town Hall meeting before the 3/14 vote. Please look for an announcement of this meeting. It was requested that a 10 day notice be given so that residents can plan to attend.

SGFC COMMENT:

We are opposed to this project for the following reasons:

o The County should never place itself in the position of a quid pro quo arrangement with any landowner, large or small.

o The County has not fully analyzed the implied/incidental costs associated with this project to justify its statement that it will save 1.5 million in current dollars on construction of the road. These include infrastructure costs to support the planned 700 additional homes. It is our belief that these long term costs will exceed the short term savings.

o We believe the County should insist a DRI be conducted, or conduct one themselves, to gauge the overall impact of the project in terms of infrastructure, safety, traffic, and the lost commercial tax revenue versus residential development.

o The fate of the Dicks’ Creek Sewer Plant has not yet been determined and the County has not demonstrated how it will address its shortcomings. This plant is currently operating with a deadline of SEP 05 to cease its unlawful disposal of phosphorus laden effluent into Dick’s Creek, or it will be faced with up to a $35,000 a day fine.

o SGFC is categorically opposed to any additional residential development anywhere in the County until the County provides a working plan to the identified water supply issues and resourcing of existing schools and its plan to implement its land use plan and Master Overlay, when and if those are completed.