Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Waterlevel R4 Failed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies rezoning request for Water Level Highway; planning commission had rejected it earlier
Summary
A proposal to rezone property on Water Level Highway to allow a large mobile home/travel trailer park was denied after planners concluded the submitted plan did not meet site requirements; commissioners voted 13–0 against the rezoning following concerns about access, wetlands, sewer capacity and moratoriums on taps.
Bradley County commissioners voted unanimously (13–0, one absent) to deny a rezoning request that would have changed a parcel on Water Level Highway from Forestry-Agriculture-Residential to R-4 (mobile home park and travel trailer park). The county's planning commission had already voted unanimously against the plan.
County staff explained that the rezoning request included a development plan calling for roughly 60 quadplex units and about 64 proposed campground spots. Planning staff and commissioners raised multiple technical obstacles: the parcel contains springs and wet areas, site access is problematic, and sewer capacity and a moratorium on additional taps were cited as constraints.
Commissioners and staff said the applicant would need to substantially revise the proposal to address access, grading and sewer capacity before the county could consider approval. Commissioner discussion noted that hydrology on the site presented a substantial constraint; Commissioner Thompson described year-round standing water and repeated wetland concerns along portions of the property.
Because the Planning Commission denied the request and the development plan did not meet the county's criteria, the county commission recorded a negative vote and the rezoning request failed. County staff advised that applicants could either rework the plan to fit existing zoning allowances or submit a different rezoning request with a revised development plan.
No owners or applicants were present at the hearing to answer additional technical questions, the county clerk noted.
