VALDOSTA – Despite another lawsuit challenging the validity of the decision, Lowndes County Commission recently voted 3-2 in favor of a controversial Howell Road rezone for a recovery house.

The lawsuit, filed by Howell Road property owner Deidra Frier and nearby resident Savannah Baker, states commissioners failed to adhere to the Unified Land Development Code during the second public hearing on the issue April 11.

The situation began last June, when Brent Moore, founder of a faith-based recovery residency, sought to rezone 23 acres at 2193 Howell Road from Estate Agricultural to nonresidential plan development.

The proposed facility would accommodate up to 52 residents but existing

zoning regulations did not permit such facilities at Howell Road.

Despite the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial 8-2, County Commission passed the rezone in a 3-2 decision, with Chairman Bill Slaughter casting a tiebreaker vote in favor.

On April 11, District 2 Commissioner Scottie Orenstein, District 3 Commissioner Mark Wisenbaker and District 5 Commissioner Clay Griner voted in favor of the request, while District 1 Commissioner Joyce Evans and District 4 Commissioner Demarcus Marshall voted against it.

After the decision, Frier and Baker raised concerns about procedural irregularities surrounding the public hearing. According to an injunction filed May 11, two counts challenge the legitimacy of past hearings.

Count 1 claims an improper Sept. 13, 2022 meeting when the County Commission allegedly failed to provide an opportunity to the opposition for a rebuttal to those in favor, violating Section 10.00.07 (B) of the ULDC.

Count 2 claims the April 11 meeting failed to meet the minimum notice requirements outlined in O.C.G.A. § 36-66-5.

“The failure of the Lowndes County Commission to observe the minimum notice requirements set forth by O.C.G.A. § 36-66-5 and the Lowndes County Land Development Code, renders the April 11, 2023, hearing improper. Given the improper hearing, the April 11, 2023 rezoning of 2193 Howell Road is null and void,” the lawsuit claims.

This lawsuit is not the first time the County Commission has faced legal challenges regarding procedural missteps. Last July, a lawsuit was filed by local business owner Jesse Bush, citing similar concerns about time limits for public comments and improper scheduling of the hearing, violating the ULDC.

Slaughter took responsibility for the errors then, declaring the original decision invalid.

During the most recent public hearing, numerous residents voiced concerns about the potential impact of the proposed facility on the surrounding areas. Eleven opposition letters and more than 500 signatures were submitted against the development, emphasizing worries about its safety and compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood.

Baker pleaded with commissioners for the third time to see the residents’ point of view.

Baker and Justin Stafford, a former resident of Redeemed Living, questioned the facility’s operations.

After listening to more comments from the opposing side, Moore defended the program.

During the first portion of the meeting, commissioners had to decide whether to acknowledge the legal challenge and invalidate the second rezone decision. Commissioner Marshall motioned to declare the April 11 decision invalid but hesitation arose among the commissioners.

County Attorney Walter Elliot advised them to invalidate the vote and proceed to the public hearing, leading Commissioner Clay Griner to second the motion. Ultimately, Commissioners Marshall, Griner and Evans voted in favor of invalidating the decision, while Commissioners Orenstein and Wisenbaker went against counsel and voted against it.

Following the public hearing and considering all sides and rebuttals, Griner moved to approve Redeemed Living’s rezone request, with Orenstein and Wisenbaker affirming the motion. Marshall and Evans voted against the request, resulting in the same 3-2 split decision as the April 11 vote.