Gold Creek developers ask council to restore hearing after multi‑year approval delays

Michael Turner, who said he represents Gold Creek Development, and resident Grady Turner told the Dawsonville City Council during public comment that a long‑running subdivision in Gold Creek has been delayed and should be returned to the agenda for a hearing.

The Turners said the project was approved and permitted in June 2022 and that inspections and planning signoffs were completed. "We submitted a plan for a project in Gold Creek, more than 3 years ago. It was approved and permitted in June of 20 22. The project is now completed and finaled by the planning department, the inspectors," Michael Turner said.

Why it matters: the speakers said delays have financial consequences for local, longtime property owners and that restoring the hearing would allow the council to decide whether to move the project forward. Michael Turner asked the council "to add this to the hearing so we can have our hearing tonight on our project, which is complete. So I respectfully ask that you vote to allow us our day in court." The council did not take action on that request during the public‑comment segment recorded in the transcript.

Details from public comment: Michael Turner said the project began more than three years ago and has complied with requests from multiple planning directors and inspectors. He described the family as long‑time Dawson County residents and said they lack funds to restore a former golf course on the property without development revenue. "It means something to me," he said about the golf course, noting a $3 million to $3.5 million estimate to rebuild it.

Grady Turner, who identified his address and family history in Dawsonville, described the Turners' efforts to meet planning requirements and said repeated delays have been harmful. He said the family has "dotted every I, we've crossed every t," and asked the council to treat their application consistently with others.

What the council record shows: the applicants reported their hearing had been placed on the council agenda and later removed; they asked the council to restore the hearing so the council could vote. The transcript records the request but does not show the council granting it during the same meeting.

Context and next steps: the speakers said the application was approved and finaled by city planning and inspections but that the council or staff removed the item from the agenda last week. They requested the council restore the hearing; the council's response or a future hearing date was not recorded in the transcript.

Ending: The Turners concluded by asking for equal treatment and a timely hearing on their completed subdivision. The record shows two speakers used the meeting's public‑comment slot; there is no formal action on the request in the recorded portion of the meeting.