[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6387221,"mediaKeyId","2116850-f5d7afab82bf68eef5cb67a0ef8b2717","parentId",2116850,"title","Votes at a glance: key actions from the Jan. 9 Hall County commission meeting","audioSeconds",3419,"startMs",441000,"endMs",3860000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2116850-f5d7afab82bf68eef5cb67a0ef8b2717&start=441&end=3860","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2116850-f5d7afab82bf68eef5cb67a0ef8b2717/thumbnail_441000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6387221/Hall-County/Georgia/Votes-at-a-glance-key-actions-from-the-Jan-9-Hall-County-commission-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6387221-9c8b1327ae091e57096831ebf9e3c21f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108667&Signature=KMGmeFODqKx9X~bHRUdALjsSkxNRchxBgKtY04Ldgb8rq-8j4sd959GlEEpOYoOuhjUNiSY2w3inwHPE5IApjDt7JMsNXovAzcpntC9bRtE1WS2I1ReLmP8HM1yrfNLaIcucU1XH7L0BM~zeVLgJJpCSFbbJVqR7EwEIYkAoAXoP2DgShy1XB8h2kzXsakrmXgoC~ZUY1sCb-nXEZrYQbGqtWowBu8ate7gVnskZk1mPIuziV3iPeMBJcx7sbeuQTj6GUx9VzR9ZocTXVeJtqWTbSp2OTqnsFTuQfXpJZuQFbSHJNiIXB~yL9yd-q-8PujPRluL1ybrcvUXiK1ItKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hall County GA ","date","2025-01-10T00:00:00Z","article","The Hall County Board of Commissioners recorded multiple formal actions at its Jan. 9, 2025 voting meeting. The following lists the agenda items, a short description and the recorded outcome on the meeting transcript. (This is a summary of formal actions taken; fuller material and staff reports are on file with the county clerk.)

• Item 20 — Mount Vernon Manor performance/maintenance guarantee (commission district 3): The board authorized the county attorney to proceed with collection of a performance and maintenance guarantee in the amount of $187,250 related to sidewalks in a 22‑lot Mount Vernon Manor subdivision. Staff said the item authorizes collection but does not mandate it; an extension is expected to be presented at the Jan. 23 meeting. Outcome: Motion passed (authorization to proceed recorded).

• Item 21 — 5991 Swansea Road, application to amend conditions for a 100‑lot residential development: After an extended hearing with residents and staff presentations, the board amended the subdivision conditions to split responsibility for road improvements (developer-funded blue section; county-funded maintenance-standard purple section), with timing and contribution language tied to the developer’s land disturbance permit. Outcome: Motion passed.

• Item 22 — Rezoning request for Ridge Road (0 and 4435 Ridge Road) to Planned Commercial Development (Scott Puckett Inc.): Applicant requested the item be tabled to Jan. 23, 2025. Outcome: Tabled to Jan. 23, 2025.

• Item 23 — 4163 Cleveland Highway (use subject to county commission approval; auto sales and repair; Ramon Carrillo Jr.): Planning Commission had recommended approval with 15 conditions. The board approved the use with conditions and added boundary fencing/privacy requirements; motion passed.

• Item 24 — 6515 New Bethany Road (amend conditions; expand outdoor storage): Planning Commission recommended approval with 4 conditions; the board approved with those 4 conditions. Outcome: Motion passed.

• Item 25 — 2323 Thompson’s Mill Road (amend conditions; change of proposed use): Planning Commission recommended approval with 3 conditions; the board approved with the stated conditions. Outcome: Motion passed.

• Item 26 — 5111 Old Winder Highway (rezoning to PRD, add 10 acres and 38 townhomes): Board approved the rezoning and conditions as presented. Outcome: Motion passed.

• Item 27 — 5079 Old Winder Highway (amend conditions associated with the same development): The board voted to table this item for further review and to coordinate with item 26; item 27 was tabled to the next scheduled meeting. Outcome: Tabled.

• Item 28 — 5552 Bogus Road (rezoning to PRD for a proposed 15‑lot residential development oriented to adults with developmental disabilities): After public comment and technical discussion, the applicant requested time to refine plans; the board agreed to table the item to the first voting meeting in February (Feb. 13). Outcome: Tabled to Feb. 13, 2025.

• Other procedural actions: The board approved consent items, accepted presentations and recorded closures/meeting schedule changes announced by staff.

The meeting transcript records each motion as passed, tabled or scheduled; in many cases the transcript records the vote in the customary “All in favor? All opposed? Motion passed” format without a roll‑call tally by name. For items that require follow-up (notably the Swansea Road condition amendment and the rezoning items that were tabled), staff were assigned follow-up tasks, including drafting implementing language, preparing design and budget options, and bringing revised conditions back to a future meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BOC Voting Meeting 01.10.25","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions taken at the Jan. 9 Hall County Board of Commissioners meeting, including zoning items, bond collection authorization and schedule changes.","taxTitle","Hall County, Georgia","taxId",3595,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6387232,"Commissioners set Feb. 27 vote to remove septic tank permitting from Hall County building application; staff to present plan",97,5640000,5737000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2116850-f5d7afab82bf68eef5cb67a0ef8b2717&start=5640&end=5737","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2116850-f5d7afab82bf68eef5cb67a0ef8b2717/thumbnail_5640000.jpg","/articles/6387232/Hall-County/Georgia/Commissioners-set-Feb-27-vote-to-remove-septic-tank-permitting-from-Hall-County-building-application-staff-to-present-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6387232-08b2f9ee265c8e16f286063a453111ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108667&Signature=ILb6Tp-xppOYGO1tkiFwmIMpaoFmaYH0T6myWlRnOEUiY2UrU9fwu1Q3fhM5n9ctUOA4XnU1BV-W1wyyH56FN~dBGSmcmdUv8vtu8CGRBntptb28UAuJDONbn2jaUytmtD5x1jJOcMM1hRC-nbi2fAxIJpjoLxoDUCTmKLNy4uujmhzqu9pR--PZFM05b9JyM1VSTVvH4EsmK0gJ0Bp2yWInGBbi01g5xMM9j~6SB3CT4XXPXzDa4AnNCYkJGFpUGlAwAPUK6hEh~hcvw-cEXsNGgFB8TnFl0UC0QIMIDSdQNzU7Y08dTtHj-8dWifO3CBhvXQm1ZiCw0t2AZlnCrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hall County commissioners on Jan. 9 voted to set a formal decision date of Feb. 27 to remove septic tank permitting from the county’s building permit application process and directed staff to return with a plan for implementation.

At the meeting the motion on the record tasked staff to develop options and timelines and return to the board for a vote. County administrator Zach Probst told the commissioners he would prepare materials and said he would be prepared to present findings by mid‑February. “On December 12th, we agreed to a 2 month window. And so I will be prepared to present to the board by February 12th,” Probst said during the discussion. Commissioners then scheduled the public vote for Feb. 27 and the motion to set that schedule passed.

Why it matters: Removing septic permitting from the county building-permit application would change which approvals applicants must obtain locally. The board did not adopt new technical rules at the Jan. 9 meeting; instead it directed staff to prepare an implementation plan, with pros and cons, ahead of the Feb. 27 vote.

What the board asked staff to include: commissioners sought a practical timeline for removal, legal and process implications, and options for transition. One commissioner noted the board needs the information in advance of the Feb. 27 vote; Probst said staff would share materials beforehand.

Outcome recorded on the transcript: the motion to schedule the vote and task staff passed. The board’s final action on Jan. 9 was procedural (direct staff and set a vote date), not a final removal — the vote to remove the septic-permitting requirement remains scheduled for Feb. 27, 2025.","The board directed staff to prepare a plan and scheduled a formal vote for Feb. 27 to remove septic tank permitting from the county building permit application process, giving staff a multi-week window to return with implementation details.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6387235,"Commissioners approve mixed funding plan for Swansea Road improvements tied to 5991 Swansea Road subdivision",2446,630000,3076000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2116850-f5d7afab82bf68eef5cb67a0ef8b2717&start=630&end=3076","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2116850-f5d7afab82bf68eef5cb67a0ef8b2717/thumbnail_630000.jpg","/articles/6387235/Hall-County/Georgia/Commissioners-approve-mixed-funding-plan-for-Swansea-Road-improvements-tied-to-5991-Swansea-Road-subdivision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6387235-1ba067bfa3a4ec87bfb450c2500950e8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771108667&Signature=iaip6IVQPswqYHPi0zmexSbuBq9RQ~S0kyrDcA1GPjet6Xcm2Ko1M69TWGnUcLET-WxvdrXSaFmK0oHh8VAeB3uWaw62-A70Xn2qHeVd2Zsbbf6kae7GAs8-1PJ3-hjUahVjJGJFqPwwMp1DSnjKM-9sk823~wqm9UazbJX3m0soyZ0jvXhWumXtlCPSVmrl1UGsdDaTCgSbVaunR1m4b~BJmDGplwJ8PaSp1AbrhS49F-451h3376pbbpzXZlBFN~L57vy6Jz0dNPwhgxM-JPSMzoCepEp~jChTYGFTHrsMDlweVn7t02sY7huxn~ED28VcDg-pcEAm47qq588-4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hall County commissioners on Jan. 9 approved a conditional change tied to a proposed 100-lot subdivision at 5991 Swansea Road that splits responsibility for paving and improvements between the developer and the county.

The board voted to require the developer to fund and initiate construction of the segment nearest Blackjack Road (the “blue” section shown in county materials) at the time the developer obtains a land-disturbance permit. County staff will perform a lower-standard maintenance paving on the remaining portion toward Friendship Road (the “purple” section) and will seek budget funding to upgrade to full AASHTO design standards when feasible.

Why it matters: Residents who live on Swansea Road have for years raised safety and dust concerns tied to the dirt conditions and increasing cut-through traffic. Commissioners and staff framed the compromise as a way to get at least part of the road up to long-term standards while ensuring nearer-term relief for residents.

County Public Works Director Bill Nash summarized the engineering trade-offs and cost estimates in a presentation to the board: “This is the development project being proposed, but this right here represents a 0.8 mile realignment of road project … It does, require realignment of the section that’s adjacent to Vulcan. And this did have an estimated cost of $5,600,000 as a capital project to do that project, for the county,” Nash said. He told the board the realignment’s most expensive portion—the curve near the quarry—drives the bulk of that estimate.

Developer Michael Cooper told the board the applicant had offered a $650,000 capital contribution toward Swansea Road improvements in revised draft conditions; Cooper said that contribution could be applied to the blue section and that, if phase 1 construction was not imminent by April 30, 2026, the developer would perform a temporary pavement (a maintenance topping) for the other portion to reduce dust and mud for residents. “The proposed condition … refers to the ability for the developer to make a contribution of $650,000 to the improvement of Swansea Road up to AASHTO standards,” Cooper said.

Neighbors at the hearing pushed for more county-funded work. Susan McCullough, who lives near the proposed subdivision entrance, told commissioners: “You’re talking about 200 more cars on this road, if not more.” Several neighbors testified the road is muddy, dusty and used as a cut-through to a nearby park.

County staff provided three options during the hearing: full realignment to AASHTO standards (the $5.6 million option), a maintenance overlay of the existing alignment (an estimated $525,000 maintenance option presented as lower-standard work), or no change. Nash said the blue section could be brought to AASHTO standards without additional right-of-way acquisition and estimated that work (including a 30% contingency) at roughly $1,000,000; the developer and staff agreed the developer’s contribution could be applied to that portion at land-disturbance permit (LDP) and that the county would work to include the purple section in the next fiscal budget for design and construction.

The final board motion, as clarified on the record, requires the developer to fund the blue section and to be authorized to start that construction at the LDP stage; the county will plan and pursue funding to perform the maintenance-standard work on the purple section and, if budget allows, upgrade that work to full AASHTO design standards later. The board recorded the motion as passed.

What the motion requires: the developer’s financial contribution (the parties discussed $650,000) will be used toward the AASHTO-standard blue segment and the developer may be allowed to initiate the blue-section work when it secures its land-disturbance permit. If the county cannot commit to full AASHTO improvements on the purple portion in time, the developer agreed in discussion to self-perform a maintenance topping over that section by April 30, 2026, so that construction traffic does not leave the road in a worse condition for neighbors.

Details and numbers surfaced during the hearing: county staff estimated a full realignment near the quarry could cost $3.5–$4.0 million for the most difficult curve segment and about $5.6 million for the entire two-phase project; the blue segment alone was presented as roughly $1,000,000 including contingencies; a lower-standard maintenance overlay option for the entire length was estimated at about $525,000.

Residents’ concerns and next steps: commissioners said they want the county to budget for the purple maintenance portion in the next fiscal cycle and staff said they would prepare designs and a recommended funding plan. The developer asked for the county to authorize initiation of the blue-section construction with the LDP and to allow the developer’s contribution to be applied toward that segment. The board’s motion sets those expectations while leaving detailed contract and delivery language for staff and legal review.

Quotes in this article come from the public hearing record and from presentations by county staff and the applicant. The board’s final action amended the subdivision’s conditions of zoning and included the new roadway funding/delivery language.","After an hour-plus public hearing and debate, the Board approved a compromise: the developer will pay to build the section closest to Blackjack Road while the county will fund a lower-standard maintenance overlay on the remainder, with timelines and conditions set at the land disturbance permit stage.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key actions from the Jan. 9 Hall County commission meeting

Commissioners set Feb. 27 vote to remove septic tank permitting from Hall County building application; staff to present plan

Commissioners approve mixed funding plan for Swansea Road improvements tied to 5991 Swansea Road subdivision