Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bulloch County commissioners deny 71-acre Turtle Landing rezoning after sustained resident opposition
Summary
The board voted unanimously to deny Turtle Landing Investments LLC’s request to rezone roughly 71 acres from AG‑5 to R‑25 for a single‑family subdivision near Sinkhole Road and Ephesus Church Road after extended public comment citing infrastructure, school-capacity and rural‑character concerns.
Bulloch County commissioners on Tuesday denied a request by Turtle Landing Investments LLC to rezone about 71 acres at Sinkhole Road and Ephesus Church Road from AG‑5 (five‑acre agricultural minimum) to R‑25 (25,000‑square‑foot lots).
Planning director James Pope told the board the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial and listed several staff conditions should the board elect to approve. Agent John Spandl said the applicant envisioned a covenant‑protected, higher‑end subdivision with internal roads, wells and fire protection, and estimated eventual annual property‑tax revenue increases for the county.
The decision followed more than two dozen minutes of public comment from neighbors and property owners living adjacent to the site. Speakers said the area lacks sufficient paved access, that older schools and emergency services are already strained, and that the request would erode the county’s rural character and agricultural land. "We don't feel this development is needed," one resident said, citing a regional housing study and the county comprehensive plan. Another cited traffic and trash impacts and argued smaller lots would invite rental conversions.
After applicant remarks and a brief rebuttal, a commissioner moved to deny the rezoning request. The motion to deny carried unanimously.
What happened next: Because Planning & Zoning had previously denied the proposal, commissioners noted the question of density alternatives (for example R‑80) and discussed options the applicant could pursue, including withdrawing and reapplying or returning with a lower‑density plan. The applicant indicated willingness to consider less‑dense zoning but said R‑25 made the transaction feasible for the family to retain core farm land.
Why it matters: The vote preserves the current AG‑5 zoning for the parcels in question and underscores a recurring tension in Bulloch County: pressure for new housing versus preservation of agricultural land and rural infrastructure constraints. The meeting record shows strong community mobilization and reliance on Planning & Zoning recommendations in the board's decision.
Votes and formal action: The board recorded a motion to deny the rezoning request; the motion carried unanimously. (See "Votes at a glance" for full roll calls and other actions.)
