Statesboro's city government has voided its Jan. 17 annexation of a 41-acre tract owned by Bel-Air Estates Inc. on Beasley Road after neighbors filed a legal challenge noting several errors in the city's process of taking the application and notifying the county government and school system.

However, what neighbors, including the plaintiffs, most objected to was a developer's proposal for a change to R-2 zoning to allow the construction of a townhome subdivision with up to 212 units. With nothing barring the Bel-Air Estates property owners from reapplying for annexation, an engineer for the developer, Smith Family Homes, indicates they are already applying again to have the same land annexed. They currently intend to propose a different zoning change, to R-6, for detached houses instead of townhomes, and to reduce the number of homes to 124.

Meanwhile, city officials debuted a new public notification practice for annexation during last week's City Council meeting.

As previously reported, neighbors voiced opposition to the Beasley Road annexation both during a Jan. 3 meeting of the appointed city Planning Commission, which voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the annexation request, and during the Jan. 17 council meeting, where the elected council members voted 4-1 to approve the annexation.

Then, after Susan Riley, a neighborhood resident and non-attorney spokesperson for the group, spoke again at the Feb. 7 council meeting to request that the council rescind the annexation, City Manager Charles Penny and City Attorney Cain Smith acknowledged one oversight — that the city had failed to notify the local school system of the proposed annexation as required by a July 1, 2022 change in state law.

But a legal complaint brought Feb. 16 by six Bulloch County residents — Jerry Keith Hood, Kimberly King, Raybon Anderson, Charles F. Shiels, Sandra Lee Bell and Judy R. Kent — identified several more problems with the city's annexation process, in addition to the failure to notify the Board of Education.

Other errors

These included the council's acting to approve the annexation before the end of a 45-day window state law provides for county officials, once notified, to object to the zoning. The city received the application from property owners Dec. 1, 2022 and attempted to notify the county planning and development director Dec. 9, but the final action was taken Jan. 17. The notice to the county also incorrectly described the project as a "Planned Unit Development," and gave the date and time of the city's hearing on zoning for the property to be annexed as "August 17, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.," the complaint pointed out.

The plaintiffs also asserted that the original application lacked a disclosure form, required by the city on its application, showing any contributions, if any had been made, by one of the property owners, state Rep. Lehman Franklin III, who is CEO of Bel-Air Estates Inc., to any of the city's elected officials. 

Local attorney Andrew J. Lavoie filed the complaint in Bulloch County Superior Court, not requesting any monetary damages but seeking a court order making the attempted annexation "null and void."

Two of the petitioners, Hood and King, are residents of the city as well as the county, and all of the petitioners except King live on land adjacent to the property the Bel-Air Estates property owners attempted to have annexed.

Statesboro City Council, near the end of its Feb. 21 meeting, held a closed-door discussion with litigation as one of the topics. After returning to open session, the members present voted 4-0 to authorize City Attorney Cain Smith to enter a negotiated settlement regarding the Beasley Road Annexation.

"We're going to do what's right," Smith said when asked about this after the meeting. "We acknowledge mistakes were made here, and there were problems with the notification on this annexation petition. So we'll make it right."

'Null and void'

On Friday, Judge Ronald K. "Ronnie" Thompson signed a consent order, prepared by Lavoie on behalf of the petitioners and consented to by Smith on behalf of the city. It states that the attempted Jan. 17 annexation "is and was, from inception, null and void and of no effect whatsoever."

Further, the judge, with the parties' consent, has "ordered, adjudged and decreed that the City is permanently enjoined from taking any further action with respect to the 'Annexation Application (100% Method),' Case No. AN 22-12-01, submitted on December 1, 2022."

Notably, that doesn't say that the city is barred from taking action on a later, different, annexation application regarding the same property.

"We plan to reapply," engineer Joey Maxwell, president of local firm Maxwell, Reddick & Associates, said Monday afternoon. "At this very moment we've reapplied for annexation and rezoning."

His firm is doing the engineering work on the project for Smith Family Homes, led by developer Lamar Smith. At this point the 41-acre tract is still owned by Bel-Air Estates Inc., whose shareholders are David Bobo, Robbie Franklin and Lehman Franklin III.

Rep. Franklin, also phoned Monday, said that although he is CEO, he owns only about a 3% share in the property. He said he had not made any contributions to city officials' campaigns and has now submitted a disclosure form to that effect.

The new proposal, Maxwell said, would be for an R-6 development with 124 single-family detached houses, which he described as "just under a 50% reduction in density." The 212 units had been described as a maximum for the townhome development, and 124 is 41% fewer units.

"I've had discussions with some of the neighbors and discussions with the city," Maxwell said. "So, we don't know that this is a palatable rezoning case, of course, with all of the opposition that was there for townhomes. I don't know if they will be favorable to an R-6 detached."

Anderson and Riley

Whether neighboring residents will object to a new annexation and rezoning depends on how much the developers are willing to reduce the density, said plaintiff Raybon Anderson, whose longtime family home is on adjoining property. 

"We are willing to negotiate, but we're not willing for them to develop it in the manner which they originally applied for," Anderson said. 

Those opposed, who he said number about 60 instead of just the six plaintiffs named in the formal complaint, were willing to see the land developed similarly to neighboring properties that are zoned R-20. He said the group has serious concerns about traffic safety on Beasley Road and the possibility that the Bel-Air neighborhood would be used as a "cut-through."

With the consent order making the annexation attempt "null and void," Riley said city officials have done what she had asked them to do but had hoped they would do without a need for legal action. She said the order gives the neighbors, as well as the developers and city, time to think clearly regarding the zoning.

"What the group felt was, number one, it gives them time to actually think and respond and to talk to county counsel and perhaps work on a plan," Riley said. "The way it was done it was so fast that we didn't even see a sign until the Friday before New Year's, then the planning commission met on (January 3.)" 

New notification practice

One thing the city apparently isn't reversing is the change that was made with the now-aborted Jan. 17 annexation to separate annexation from rezoning requests, removing the appointed zoning board from annexation decisions.

During a work session Tuesday afternoon, Feb. 21, Smith and Penny explained a new practice by which City Council will vote first to acknowledge receipt of any annexation requests, at which time city staff is expected to inform the county government and school system.

"Due to the increase in anticipated annexations and public interest in such, staff recommends notification be made to mayor and council, and by extension to the general public, of the initiation of annexation proceedings prior to consideration of the annexation item itself," stated one of the frames in the slideshow.

During the regular meeting that followed, the council followed this procedure in regard to two smaller annexations, said to be for commercial projects. By two 4-0 votes, the council acknowledged receipt of an annexation request from Woody Royal for 2.27 acres and an annexation request from S&K Investments for 1.72 acres, both on Old Register Road.

The council's motions also directed the city clerk to investigate and certify whether the requests meet the requirements for annexation. This involves determining whether all true owners consent to the request.