Commissioners table rezoning request for portion of Pleasant Grove parcel
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
An applicant sought to rezone a 30-acre portion of a 367-acre parcel from AR to R‑1; planning staff and the planning commission supported approval with conditions, but the applicant and commissioners agreed to table action pending the new 180‑day subdivision moratorium.
An application to rezone 30 acres of a 367-acre parcel at Pleasant Grove and Edwards roads from AR (agricultural/residential) to R‑1 (single-family residential) was tabled by the Upson County Board of Commissioners on May 27.
Planning staff told the board the request — submitted by property owner Kevin Brown — would affect only the western portion of the parent parcel and would allow smaller lots in that 30-acre area; the planning commission recommended approval by a 4‑0 vote with conditions that included a survey and recorded legal description within 60 days and initiation of subdivision review within 120 days of rezoning approval.
During discussion the applicant (identified earlier in staff materials as Kevin Brown) asked the board to delay final action until the county completes its review of AR definitions and the recently enacted subdivision moratorium. In a public statement recorded at the meeting the applicant said he has “been on this property for 40 years” and that he did not want to see “a trailer park out there,” telling commissioners he prefers larger homes and wants to preserve an agricultural character on portions of his land.
Planning staff noted the case originated in November during an earlier moratorium change and said the applicant would likely be vested because the submission predated the current moratorium, though staff said the county attorney must make the final legal determination. A planner at the meeting said, “I would think he should be vested” based on the November submission.
Commissioner Jones initially moved to approve the rezoning with the planning commission’s recommended conditions, but later rescinded that motion and instead moved to continue the matter until after the county’s subdivision moratorium process is complete. The board voted to table the request; recorded votes were in favor and the motion carried.
The item remains pending. The board instructed staff to address questions about vesting and to advise whether the applicant’s proposed subdivision could proceed under existing or revised ordinances after the moratorium period.