Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Access And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission tables commercial vehicle and RV parking rezoning over GDOT access concerns
Summary
The commission tabled a rezoning and conditional-use request for 8.734 acres at 1890 Highway 81 for commercial vehicle and RV parking after GDOT denied the proposed driveway configuration; commissioners asked the applicant to resolve access issues, possibly by adding a frontage strip or seeking split zoning, before resubmission.
Walton County Planning Commission tabled a combined rezoning and conditional-use application for 8.734 acres at 1890 Highway 81 after the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) raised access concerns and would not approve the driveway layout shown in the application.
The item matters because GDOT’s access denial left the property without an approved means of entrance under the proposed plan; the commission said it cannot grant zoning approval for commercial parking without a viable, code-compliant access arrangement.
Tip Huynh of Alcovey Consulting Engineering presented on behalf of the applicant, saying the client wants the property reclassified from A-1 to B-2 and to obtain a conditional-use permit for outside parking and storage of commercial vehicles and RVs. Huynh said he had contacted GDOT and received direction to combine or share the site entrance with an existing driveway nearby and that GDOT’s comments require a shared driveway or an alternative access layout. He said, “We plan on to move the proposed entrance south and combine it to with that existing, entrance…to do a shared driveway.”
Commissioners and staff raised multiple legal and practical issues: the application’s legal description did not include the adjacent frontage strip that GDOT indicated was necessary for a compliant access, the site is adjacent to a school zone, and county Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) limits on shared residential/commercial access may apply. Commissioners discussed options including split zoning for the frontage strip, an access easement, or acquiring the frontage needed to meet GDOT’s spacing and safety requirements. One commissioner said, “If GDOT came back to us and said we're not gonna allow the driveway you've shown…we would be zoning a property with no access.”
Given the unresolved access, the commission voted to table the case and asked the applicant and the neighboring property owner to pursue a solution—either incorporating the frontage strip into the zoning request, creating an easement for access, or returning with a revised site plan that meets GDOT standards. The motion to table was seconded and carried by voice vote. The commission advised the applicant to return with corrected legal descriptions and a viable access plan for full consideration at a future meeting.
No formal vote on the rezoning or conditional use was taken; the tabling preserves the applicant’s right to resubmit with corrected materials. Commissioners emphasized the need to avoid creating a landlocked parcel and to ensure safe access consistent with DOT and county requirements before any zoning change is recommended to the Board of Commissioners.
