Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission closes hearing on 266-acre Serenity Lakes rezoning; commissioners say proposal conflicts with Upson County plan
Summary
The Upson County Planning Commission closed the public hearing on REZ202501, a request from 10 Acres Lake LLC to rezone 266.36 acres for a 24‑lot subdivision and mixed uses. Commissioners said the proposal does not match the county’s comprehensive plan and character-area guidance; no final zoning decision was recorded in the transcript excerpt.
The Upson County Planning Commission on April 14 closed the public hearing on rezoning application REZ202501, filed by 10 Acres Lake LLC, for 266.36 acres on Old Alabama Road and Williams Road. The applicant requested rezoning for a 24‑lot residential subdivision plus light commercial uses, a clubhouse, storage units and RV parking.
The hearing was continued from an earlier meeting and staff delivered a packet described in the meeting as having “a lot of information” for commissioners to review. A commissioner moved to close the hearing and the commission agreed to end further testimony for the night.
Commissioners expressed substantive objections to the proposal. Chairman Fallon said the project “in no way meets the current comprehensive plan for Upson County nor the character area of the Spurlock Portal,” and described the area as intended for low‑density, agricultural or timber uses. A commissioner characterized the application as “a high‑density housing project” that does not fit the character area.
The application materials presented to the commission list the site acreage as 266.36 acres and identify parcels 016020021021, A021B and 031A. The zoning change was described in the transcript as an “AR2PM for a 24 lot residential subdivision, light commercial, clubhouse, storage units, and RV parking.”
The transcript excerpt does not record a final vote on rezoning or a formal approval or denial; it records the close of the public hearing and commissioners’ statements that they could not support the proposal as presented. The commission did not record a formal zoning decision in the portion of the transcript provided.
Members and staff indicated the packet and earlier testimony had been considered and that further deliberation or a formal vote could follow in future proceedings.
The planning commission noted the rezoning request in the context of the county’s comprehensive plan and the area’s designated character; no explicit statutory citations were introduced in the excerpt.
