[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-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",[32,74,85],{"_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":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6092359,"mediaKeyId","2854320-05b601c2cd3abd6b64f3c9f02b8d7e28","parentId",2854320,"title","Votes at a glance: April 2 Augusta Planning Commission","audioSeconds",2150,"startMs",2040000,"endMs",4190000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854320-05b601c2cd3abd6b64f3c9f02b8d7e28&start=2040&end=4190","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854320-05b601c2cd3abd6b64f3c9f02b8d7e28/thumbnail_2040000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6092359/Augusta-City/Richmond-County/Georgia/Votes-at-a-glance-April-2-Augusta-Planning-Commission","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092359-ecf783df27df3fd815b5aaf0a6d2c4a6/orig.mp4?Expires=1773693724&Signature=XB9PBCgSPBoFU~IEUj7aYo17G7EGmbxzlsZmmwUfmapBpygRN3s6cW6Rm3LCLGp7nlD5kLju2s~4CHiToDNSP8wfFDSVVe-dz~keKjyz4fh2Zxmz4~HHWCSKZtX6qT3P~5HvhE49szFiXtEtVXXcRIXciU0dH6KJWKSEqXBk0BhCWNkRV1yC91xnRJ7T1ZMmx9tgQmI6IqwrXC1eNO75ut3Dc1V~naWrGDerki6jR6J-havEgQJnDuYYBSLjBrSUPI9pqaeEAHV1Rne1OmAzaix1eOsODEqDOIomqaCoQYArJyzMGIZY-odPEbC045VkGINKWqdgZRdsh611I-asWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-02T18:42:00Z","article","The Augusta Planning Commission took the following formal actions on April 2, 2025. This list summarizes motions, outcomes and key conditions recorded during the meeting. All items listed are recommendations of the Planning Commission; some will return to the full Augusta Commission for final action where required by ordinance.

1) Z‑25‑07 (Southern Civil Solutions / Property Developers LLC, ~41.5 acres) — Postponed. Staff requested postponement after same‑day engineering comments identified road‑system deficiencies (Gibson Road, Mason Drive, Wynne Drive) and interior road design problems. Developer agreed to host a community meeting and return with a revised concept plan addressing engineering and utility comments. Outcome: Postponed.

2) Z‑25‑17 (JSMG Development, 72 attached townhomes, Goshen Circle, ~11.31 acres) — Denied. Staff and the assistant director of traffic engineering recommended denial. The combined lot count with the adjacent Goshen Retreat (95 lots) would reach 187 and, under Section 30‑200 of the land subdivision regulations, two entrances would be required for developments of 100–200 lots. Outcome: Denied.

3) Subdivision Variance 25‑02 (JSMG Development, single access for combined subdivisions) — Denied. Traffic engineering opposed the variance; staff recommended denial. Outcome: Denied.

4) Z‑25‑13 (1810 & 1812 Gordon Highway; amend LI conditions to allow automobile body and fender repair) — Approved with conditions. Staff recommended approval to remove a previous prohibition on automobile repair, with conditions including: all repair and storage conducted indoors or inside a fully enclosed area bounded by a solid wall or finished fence (height specified by ordinance), no additions that would invalidate existing nonconforming setbacks without BZA review, installation of a 20‑foot planting strip with medium‑canopy trees along Gordon Highway, and compliance with applicable development standards at time of redevelopment. Outcome: Approved with conditions.

5) Z‑25‑15 (4149 & 4159 Woodard Avenue; RMH → B2 for event venue) — Approved with conditions. Staff recommended approval with ten conditions including conformance to concept elevations, compliance with the Augusta tree ordinance, downward‑directed lighting, a 50‑foot undisturbed buffer along the southwest property line, a 6‑foot privacy fence on the south/southwest property line, minimum paved driveway widths if required by engineering, stormwater plan at site plan stage, and applicable parking and site‑plan compliance. Outcome: Approved with conditions.

6) Z‑25‑16 (3035 Old McDuffie Road; R‑1A → LI for commercial vehicle storage yard) — Approved with conditions. Planning staff had recommended denial as expansion of LI zoning in South Augusta is inconsistent with the 2023 comprehensive plan, but the commission approved the rezoning with staff‑negotiated conditions that included installation of a 20‑foot planting strip along Old McDuffie Road (medium to large trees) and prohibition on parking or servicing vehicles within 50 feet of Old McDuffie Road. Outcome: Approved with conditions.

7) Special Exception 25‑04 (3622 Sternaday Drive; family personal care home increase from 3 to 6 clients) — Approved with conditions. Conditions include limiting the home to six residents, code enforcement inspection before business license issuance, maintenance of city and state licenses and annual inspections, compliance with state personal care home regulations, and no signage on the property. Outcome: Approved with conditions.

8) Z‑25‑18 (Planning and Development‑initiated rezoning R‑1A → B1 at Milledgeville & Bayville) — Approved with conditions. Planning staff initiated the rezoning to reflect historical commercial use and recommended that the building come into code compliance and that landscaping and planter boxes be installed along the primary façade. Outcome: Approved with conditions.

Notes on vote tallies: Most motions were decided by voice vote; the transcript records aye/no voice votes and occasional recusals (a commissioner recused on the Goshen items). Where roll call tallies were not recorded in the transcript, this summary reports outcomes rather than numerical counts.

If an item above will require further review or action before construction (for example, a traffic study, site plan approval, subdivision variance or extension of sanitary sewer), that requirement is noted in the relevant article in this package.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions taken by the Planning Commission on April 2, including postponements, denials and approvals and key conditions where applicable.","taxTitle","Augusta City, Richmond County, Georgia","taxId",3794,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":46,"_47":79,"_49":80,"_51":81,"_53":82,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":83,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":84,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6092364,"Planning commission denies 72‑unit Goshen Circle townhome rezoning and related subdivision variance after strong neighborhood opposition",2054,2136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854320-05b601c2cd3abd6b64f3c9f02b8d7e28&start=2136&end=4190","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854320-05b601c2cd3abd6b64f3c9f02b8d7e28/thumbnail_2136000.jpg","/articles/6092364/Augusta-City/Richmond-County/Georgia/Planning-commission-denies-72unit-Goshen-Circle-townhome-rezoning-and-related-subdivision-variance-after-strong-neighborhood-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092364-2c32e2fb661d9b694ec620d8b197ba1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773693724&Signature=N-At9ppts-3drsCWqNFy2QViLxAW~SU8AWafI5SgTdIFvJVhmhCyqmCQ~F-4uy9h6AcxDvJ0ttlRKm5yk047VzK43IJ5GZ-Rl1phMEK-VbvvHPOjMKIGf4Vgq6v039EX~lZESOojWWQXoAiNeq8DF6N4cW0FX6iDWVWDVJkgmD1JpNR50eVv82xk6l-10ci~2odfZHm1p2MITSNagRI53l29J~UG-DBdKcmxH2PD5jKQew0sialNxU1fXLWikNI~qeKwiV0mYVrNXEGtWb3xW-Wv-TvxHaVL0wlCcAEdlwbMmZbTDRLU7oNTjpmICF2pPjuceUHqwU6H43x~vPy82w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Augusta Planning Commission on April 2 denied a rezoning request (Z‑25‑17) and a related subdivision variance that would have allowed a 72‑unit townhome development with a single entrance on Goshen Circle. The denial followed staff findings that the project exceeds allowable cumulative access limits and a traffic engineering recommendation against the variance.

Brian Kepner, zoning administrator, presented the application and noted the tract is about 11.31 acres; the concept plan proposed 72 attached townhome lots, a density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre, 32% open space and extension of Goshen Circle by roughly 1,400 feet to loop through the site. Kepner said public sanitary sewer would need to be extended roughly 125 feet and that the cumulative lot count for Goshen Retreat (95 existing lots) plus the proposed 72 units would total 187, triggering the subdivision regulation that requires two entrances for contiguous developments of 100–200 lots (section 30‑200 of the land subdivision regulations). He said the site has only one practical access point because two sides are bounded by the golf course and the other adjoins land whose only existing access also runs to Goshen Lake Drive South.

Developers and residents debated safety and traffic at length. Mark Green and Justin Bolling of JSMG Development said the project’s density is consistent with the 2023 comprehensive plan and that the developer would extend Goshen Circle and pay the cost of roadway construction. Philip Green, representing JSMG on some answers, said the open‑space percentage does not include detention areas and confirmed the developer would cover roadway extensions.

Neighbors mounted strong opposition. Linda Williams, president of the Goshen Retreat Residents Association, said the community has a single entrance and circulated a petition she said contained hundreds of signatures; she and others argued a single access point would create safety and emergency‑response problems, that sidewalks and curbs are lacking, and that existing storm drains and roads are deteriorating. Fred Ogden, a longtime resident, compared the current petition to a 2022 application; he and others said their neighborhood could absorb modest growth in single‑family homes but not a dense 72‑unit project. Several speakers expressed concern that prior promises about “townhome” developments elsewhere in the area had been followed by rental apartments in practice.

Traffic engineering weighed against the variance. During the meeting staff reported that, after the hearing started, the assistant director of traffic engineering notified planning staff that the subdivision variance was not recommended. Planning staff therefore recommended denial of both the variance and the rezoning; staff added that if the commission considered an approval it should cap the number of units in any approval to avoid leaving an open-ended entitlement.

Commissioner discussion urged negotiation between developer and neighbors, but the motion to deny the subdivision variance (25‑02) and rezoning (Z‑25‑17) carried on a voice vote. Commissioners noted the practical constraints of a single access and the neighborhood’s safety concerns; staff emphasized that any future application should address access, emergency response, and road upgrades.

Why it matters: The decision keeps in place the current zoning and preserves the neighborhood’s single‑access configuration for now; it also demonstrates the commission’s reliance on subdivision regulations that base entrance requirements on cumulative development rather than phase by phase approvals.

Next steps: The developer may revise the concept, seek additional property or access, or return with a proposal that addresses traffic/variance concerns and emergency access.","The commission rejected JSMG Development's request to rezone 11.3 acres for 72 townhomes and denied a subdivision variance allowing a single access point; staff and traffic engineering opposed approval and residents cited safety and single‑access concerns.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":92,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6092369,"Augusta planning commission postpones vote on 319-unit townhome rezoning after engineering, neighbor concerns",1482,588000,2070000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854320-05b601c2cd3abd6b64f3c9f02b8d7e28&start=588&end=2070","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854320-05b601c2cd3abd6b64f3c9f02b8d7e28/thumbnail_588000.jpg","/articles/6092369/Augusta-City/Richmond-County/Georgia/Augusta-planning-commission-postpones-vote-on-319-unit-townhome-rezoning-after-engineering-neighbor-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092369-7ef165776b2c2e4f81f1949d77f444f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1773693724&Signature=UjX9qMEbIEgl0iTrmLbZgJS-fDUOZTpFX2AYWoVPI6W66SXHb2jEe~hx21GVSel3XSdsJFkWev3--c4eTfYxWsxJ5PwSa2CYzKvzsj7gHYuJ7h6GHoqPnKCwIUc6zgZihFR5Df8MZjFF1Fy6Ev5Z4ZuTmelO-PTpZQBTRacdI5~2QUywLRO7A5Q3XJgGlw48bC7x2zdzCUy~6lxZOx8bVUGSWcHXoQnLpc40BfEQZE3zu8YPPbNI9oVBj0yUjUv-7-1rjV1BJjhwNYwibpwb9hwG3TEhelqw4qkfpopSdQAhEZsLZqlAOmA6DQsWF1WltFPn9Zvu7NtfDl5zdoT4hQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Augusta Planning Commission on April 2 postponed consideration of Z-25-07, a rezoning petition by Southern Civil Solutions LLC on behalf of Property Developers LLC that would rezone roughly 41.5 acres from R‑1A single‑family residential to R‑1E to allow a 319‑unit townhome community.

The move came after staff flagged engineering concerns about existing roads and utilities and after multiple residents urged delay. Amanda Cruz, planner I with Planning and Development, told the commission the concept plan proposes 319 attached townhome units, roughly 7.7 units per acre, 10.59 acres of open space and on‑site amenities including a clubhouse, pool and three stormwater detention ponds. Cruz said the proposal meets the R‑1E open‑space requirement (minimum 25%) but that the site lacks sanitary sewer and that traffic engineering requires a study to determine needed road improvements. She read engineering comments saying Gibson Road, Mason Drive and Wind Drive do not meet Augusta standards to support the number of lots and vehicle traffic expected and that several proposed internal intersections have “significantly acute angles” that could create safety and sight‑distance problems.

The petitioners told the commission they would work with staff. Gary Bennett, representing Southern Civil Solutions, said the developer agreed to review the engineering comments and the utilities requirements and to host a community meeting. The developer confirmed it would explore sewer extensions and road upgrades and said some items — such as crime or wildlife impacts cited by speakers — were not within the developer’s control.

Neighbors gave lengthy testimony opposing the rezoning as presented. Andrew Jordan Davis, who said he owns multiple Mason Road properties, described narrow roads without lane markings or sidewalks and said most existing homes use septic, raising questions about sewer capacity. Several speakers — including Paul Adams (3340 Wind Drive), Constance Thompson and Deborah Brown — raised safety concerns, speeding, existing shootings in the area, damage to trees and wildlife, and the proximity of the proposed internal road to existing homes. Tom Adams and others warned that Wind Drive is “one‑car passable” and said a new internal connection would require taking existing property and widening dangerous stretches.

Planning staff recommended a postponement after receiving the engineering department’s comments earlier in the day. Director Delaney read a revised staff recommendation asking that the developer return with a revised concept plan that: (1) addresses Gibson Road, Mason Drive and Wynne Drive upgrades to meet road‑system standards, (2) shows an interior road cross‑section that meets current standards, and (3) revises internal intersections to reduce acute angles. A commissioner added that the developer should host a community meeting before returning to the commission; the developer agreed to do so. The commission voted in favor of postponement by voice vote.

Why it matters: The proposal would more than double the surrounding area’s density (staff noted surrounding density around 4.3 units per acre). Commissioners and residents framed the issue as a balance between new housing supply and existing infrastructure capacity, including roads, sewer availability and public safety. Staff and engineering told the commission the project cannot proceed without addressing road geometry, right‑of‑way and sewer extension questions.

Next steps: The developer will present a revised concept plan addressing engineering comments and will host a community meeting; the item will return to the commission for further review. The developer and staff agreed to work with neighbors in advance of the next hearing.","A proposed rezoning to allow 319 townhomes on about 41.5 acres was postponed so developers can address engineering concerns and meet the neighborhood; residents raised traffic, safety, sewer and environmental worries.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: April 2 Augusta Planning Commission

Planning commission denies 72‑unit Goshen Circle townhome rezoning and related subdivision variance after strong neighborhood opposition

Augusta planning commission postpones vote on 319-unit townhome rezoning after engineering, neighbor concerns