Shouts of “corrupt” and “see you in November” could be heard from upset citizens during the Columbia County Board of Commissioners meeting Tuesday, March 21.
The reaction was in response to the commissioners failing to approve an appeal by the Jones Creek Owners Association for the Feb. 16 decision by the Columbia County Planning Commission where a request from developer Mark Herbert of MBH Holdings for a minor planned unit development (PUD) revision at the clubhouse was approved, the Augusta Press previously reported.
Tripp Nanney, the president of the Jones Creek Homeowners Association, told commissioners that there are 579 homeowners in the neighborhood, and in a survey about the PUD, 619 votes were returned with 98% being against changing the PUD for the clubhouse.
“Why, well, we’ve got a golf course that’s been closed for…years, and we currently have a group working to reopen the driving range with plans to open the entire golf course,” Nanney said. “This group, Bond Golf Global, has indicated without the clubhouse, their ability to successfully reopen the golf course will be in jeopardy.”
If the golf course isn’t reopened, Nanney asked why a full-time restaurant, bar and hospitality business at that location would be good for the Jones Creek residents. He added the residents want what they got when they purchased their homes in the neighborhood, which is for the governing PUD to be maintained.
“Is there another residential neighborhood in Columbia County that has a hospitality house and a full-time restaurant right in the middle of it? I don’t think so,” Nanney said. “This potential model has no upside for our residents, and it starts a dangerous precedence. What we don’t want are concessions to any entity that chips away the current PUD.”
With the clubhouse changing, Nanney stated that any golf operation that comes to Jones Creek will require golf cart storage and a structure to handle the golf operations, along with needing to find parking for players and guests.
“One, and only one person wins if you allow this modification,” Nanney said. “The applicant wins, the Jones Creek residents lose, one winner and over 1,000 Columbia County tax paying voters loose. It’s extremely disappointing that the request is now being considered minor revision to the PUD when in fact not one word from the original narrative was changed, not one word.”
There were also concerns about the business at that location being open from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. every day and being in the middle of a residential neighborhood. He also expressed concern about residents being able to find parking when using the pool and tennis courts.
“Not one person purchasing a house in Jones Creek expected our clubhouse to become anything like this entity. Our residents, your Columbia County tax paying voters are overwhelmingly against this application to revision the Jones Creek PUD for property right in the middle of our neighborhood,” Nanney said.
Wendell Johnston, an attorney who spoke on behalf of Jones Creek residents, stated while the PUD has changed over the years, the changes have never been done appropriately. In this case, the changes that were requested were what is known as minor revisions, which means it doesn’t have to be advertised, a public notice doesn’t have to be given and a public hearing doesn’t have to be held.
“If you change the PUD and you don’t have those procedures in place, you violate the Columbia County code and you violate state law,” Johnston said. “The PUD requires, I know the homeowner’s association and the people of Jones Creek want it to be a pro shop, but it’s not a want or desire, it is a requirement. It is a requirement in the PUD which has never been changed appropriately. The PUD provides that a Jones Creek golf club will be a pro shop and will provide for the sale of merchandise, golf and recreational activity and services, that’s it’s only use. That’s never been changed appropriately. It’s never been changed through section 90-180 of the Columbia County code and that is used when you change a PUD and changing the zoning. When you change the zoning, it’s got to be advertised, got to be a public hearing and there’s got to be notice. That hasn’t been done in this case.”
Because of this, Johnston claimed the procedure wasn’t followed and the application should be denied.
District 1 Commissioner Connie Melear made the motion to overturn the decision, but failed to get a second, which led to the appeal being denied. No other commissioners commented on the issue during the meeting.
“My people have spoken,” Melear said. “I represent this district; they live in my district and they’re my people. It was my job to represent them in this proceeding. They had an attorney, but it was my job as an elected representative to bring their will to the table. Unfortunately, my colleagues didn’t see fit to follow suit, but I did my job representing them.”
