WILL MONROE BECOME HENRY COUNTY? Part 3

By Mark d’Agostino

  This is the third of four articles, “Will Monroe Become Henry County?”. The last two installments related the past trends, current state and drivers to the HC situation.  This installment will focus on Monroe County, it’s status and an analysis of the current P&Z process.

To summarize, Henry County, by most accounts, suffers from:

• Overcrowding 
• High crime
• Higher property taxes
• Roads 15 years behind 
• School systems downturn
• Overbuilding of mass housing instead of single-family homes 

How did the planning and zoning process allow it?

• A comprehensive plan that is insufficiently directive
• Development misaligned with the Comprehensive Plan
• Overzealous spot rezoning, compromising the Planning and Future Use Map.
• BOC decisions that are made without fact-based impact assessments.
• Minimal community input to the decision-making process and no feedback for that which is given.
• Distrust of BOC members, their motives and commitment to the population over developers.

Where is Monroe County Today?

     Monroe today has a population density of approx. 78 people per sq. mile, about 1/8th the density of HC. From the last Comprehensive Plan update, the following comes from the community survey:

Greatest Strengths: 

• Quality schools
• Proximity to employment centers
• Sense of Community

Greatest Challenges:

• Housing affordability
• Housing choice
• Lack of job opportunities

Focus of Planning for the Future

• Improve planning for growth
• Promote affordable housing
• Provide recreational opportunities

     

This article will compare HC and MC from a planning perspective.

Is the comprehensive plan sufficiently directive?

     HC recently redid their Comprehensive plan, and in doing so added specificity.  In addition, HC has an associated transportation plan:

     Recent zoning moratoria and revisions to the Comprehensive Plan indicate the willingness of the county to do a better job in the future.  Time will tell if these improvements are sufficient to control excessive development.  Many would say the damage is already done.

     Comparatively, the MC Comp Plan is rather high level and there is no associated transportation plan.  The comp plan contains a vision statement: “welcoming communities primed for managed growth”, and a commitment to cultivating a “small-town feel”.  No where, however is “managed growth” defined. So, there’s NO WAY to gauge if future development is aligned with this or not.  

     One interpretation is: Alignment with the Comp Plan = Compatibility with the current Planning and future use map.  The zones described on this map are critical as they “promote the separation of incompatible uses, encourage sound land use patterns, and retain the character of the community” (source: UDO).

     Recently there have been several approved developments: Buc-ee’s, Data Center and the Hydrogen Plant, all of which will yield significant tax revenue gains. But…do these align with the Comprehensive Plan?  

     The best way to assess this is if they are being approved without rezoning, or the creation of special use.  

     Generally, they seem to fit although an addendum to the permitted use table and rezoning was added for the Data Center on Rumble Road which was approved in the Fall of 2024. The BOC approved a spot rezoning from A-R to C-1.  

     Spot zoning, in land use planning, refers to rezoning a small area of land differently than the surrounding area, often for the benefit of a single property owner and to the detriment of the broader community.  

     More importantly, per the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance), C-1 is for small businesses that serve the local community.  Obviously, a data center doesn’t fit this use and thus appears contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan. This sets a precedent which will make it harder to disallow more data centers in C-1 zoned areas.

     On the plus side, the Zoning and Future Use Map, which is a pivotal component of future planning, remains largely uncorrupted by massive spot re-zoning (a key failure mode in HC which has put a moratorium on spot rezoning).  Maintaining the integrity of the Z & FU Map is CRITICAL to controlling the future of MC. 

Does the BOC decision criteria include a requirement for empirical information on the impact?

     In both counties, decisions on special use and rezoning are made “contingent” on DRI or analyses and reports.  In MC, the UDO has, in chapter one, a set of “standards” to be applied for the exercise of zoning powers, to be applied in rezoning of property and the issuance of special use permits (see image below).  These standards are dutifully applied by Community Development Manager.  

     A closer inspection, however, indicates the application of these standards to be superficial.  For example, in the recent special use request to put a mechanical shop on a farm, there are several “answers” to the standards that one might question.

    Standard 4: The threat to public health, safety and welfare if rezoned.  

     The answer given is, “the property is not being rezoned”.   This dodges the true intention of the standard, which is making the point that the environmental impact of the ACTION should be considered.  In this case, a mechanical shop, if it were a business would probably be subject to environmental permits from the state and county, for instance.   If the vehicles have air conditioning systems, for example, an EPA certification might be required.

     In short, the documented response provides literally no value in addressing the standard.

     Standard 9: The impact on the environment including, but not limited to, drainage, soil erosion and sedimentation, flooding, air quality and water quality and quantity.

     The answer given is, “our office has not received any violations of this property so far”.  Who would think that the absence of any historical complaint is a valid proxy for legitimate analysis?  Mechanical shops, can have several environmental impacts, including: 

• Hazardous waste: Used oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, solvents, and other chemicals can contaminate soil and water if not handled and disposed of properly.
• Air pollution: Vehicle emissions and fumes from paints and solvents can negatively impact air quality.
• Water pollution: Oil, grease, and chemicals can wash into storm drains and contaminate water bodies.
• Energy consumption: Shops consume energy for tools, equipment, lighting, and HVAC.
• Waste generation: Used  oil, parts, etc.

     None of these potential issues appear to have been scrutinized in any way before making this decision.  The shop in question may service 10 vehicles a year, or 500.  It may repaint or not.  These specifics were not supplied as part of the decision-making information. Special use permits are often subject to conditions designed to minimize potential negative impacts of the proposed use on the surrounding area. None were specified in this example.

Is there a  formal process for assessing the “will” of the public and is feedback for the minimal commentary given?

     As for public input, both HC and MC utilize the same means, namely public commentary at the P&Z board and the BOC.  Depending on the topic and the scope, it sometimes happens that a deluge of would-be commenters descends upon the venue.  The time allotted for public commentary is generally very short.  As a result, when the issue is controversial, the percentage of speakers wishing to speak is ironically lower.  There is no survey or general assessment done.  The BOC members may, at their whim, ping trusted members of the public to get a sense of what the community thinks.  But all of this is highly unscientific.  There are no records of how many people opposed and how many are for.

Is there trust amongst the citizenry with BOC members and do they demonstrate commitment to the residents over developers?

     From HC resident: “…We have very, very greedy commissioners here in Henry County that do not care… not one little bit. I cannot prove that they are lining their own pockets but I think they are. They have absolutely ruined HENRY COUNTY. It is unrecognizable. They care ZERO for their constituents.  They have meetings. They give citizens less than 5 minutes to talk. They don’t listen. They don’t care. They do what they want to anyway. It is ridiculous.”

     In MC, of the 5 commissioners, 3 have spent considerable time on the Board (John A since 2015, Eddie R since 2017, Lamarcus since 2021), with the new ones being Alan Gibbs and Al Turner.  Every politician will have fans and foes.  For the 3 standing commissions, they appear to have a relatively strong rapport with the citizenry in general.  All three of them were contacted and gave input to this set of articles.  Input was requested from Alan Gibbs and Al Turner however neither responded to the opportunity, possibly due to their affiliation with another periodical in the county.

Summary:

     Without better, more fact based, transparent and disciplined processes, the only thing guiding Monroe to the future (may be more like Henry County, may be more like where Monroe is now) is the set of commissioners.  The UDO is continuously amended and may be comprehensively reviewed, however no process for overhaul has been identified. The Monroe BOC is continuously fielding requests for rezoning and special use allowances.  These, sometime innocuous compromises will add up.  The laws in GA generally support the notion: good for one, good for all.  SO, when a compromise is given, it opens the door for a pervasive application of this compromise to all with similar situations.

     In the last installment of this article, a set of recommendations for improving the process to address the issues identified above will be given.  Stay tuned.

Note: I have chosen to decline compensation for writing these articles.  I do this as a public service to my fellow citizens of Monroe County.