Pickens County planning commission denies rezoning for 19.84-acre All Red Mill Road subdivision

The Pickens County Planning Commission on an unnamed date denied a request to rezone a 19.84‑acre parcel on All Red Mill Road from agricultural to estate residential, blocking a proposed five‑lot subdivision.

Staff recommended approval of rezoning RZ190878, saying the parcel (Parcel 053006) is largely in a suburban residential character area and that the requested estate‑residential zoning would be consistent with surrounding uses. The application was presented to the commission by an attorney identified in the record as Joshua Muscarga of the law firm Underwood Scoggins, who said the plan would create five single‑family lots, each exceeding the three‑acre minimum for the district.

The substance of the public hearing centered on steep grades, drainage across stream channels on the site, and how maintenance of common driveways would be handled. Several nearby residents told the commission they opposed the rezoning. John Lucas said, “There’s no way without major dirt being moved that that’s not a major safety issue.” Resident Ryan Lowe said concern over safety and community impact led “30 some odd, 40 some odd people” to sign a petition opposing the plan. Miles Phillips, who said he has 26 years in the grading business, warned that steep slopes and stream crossings would require substantial engineering and could worsen erosion.

The applicant’s attorney acknowledged the site’s development challenges, telling commissioners that mass grading and stream crossings would be expensive and that whether the subdivision is ultimately built would be dictated by feasibility and later permitting. Staff and the attorney noted that a land disturbance plan and state erosion controls would be required at the development stage.

Several speakers and commissioners raised the likely need for maintenance agreements and subdivision covenants for the common driveway and other shared infrastructure. The attorney said the applicant would be “amenable to putting a maintenance agreement in place” and to recording covenants to address long‑term upkeep.

After discussion the commission voted to deny the rezoning. The motion to deny carried on a voice/hand‑raise vote; the record does not show a roll‑call tally or the names of the mover and seconder. The denial ends the current rezoning effort; any future proposal would require a new application and further review by staff and the commission.

Planning staff noted that development of the site, if pursued in the future, would require compliance with state land‑disturbance and erosion‑control regulations and the county’s subdivision standards.