Planning commission recommends denial of rezoning for 424 Brandon Drive after neighbor opposition

The Bulloch County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a rezoning request for a 10.55‑acre parcel at 424 Brandon Drive that would change zoning from R‑80 to R‑2 to allow two‑family (duplex) development, after an extended public‑comment period in which multiple nearby residents opposed the request.

Planning staff introduced the application by Janet Lanier and noted staff recommended conditions if approval were granted. Grace Wooten, agent with Pape Dawson, presented the applicant’s site plan and said the proposal preserves more than three acres of natural land, provides an acre of recreational/open space and aims to provide ‘missing‑middle’ housing options. Wooten said the proposed plan differs from a prior plan presented less than a year earlier and that the current layout complies with the county’s rezone standards in more categories than the November plan.

Three neighbors spoke in opposition. Shelly Rountree said the change would “have numerous negative impacts on surrounding property values, aesthetics of the community, and increased infrastructure requirements on the backs of the taxpayers,” told the commission that existing multifamily buildings nearby are in poor repair and raised concerns about septic fields, wetland drainage and the absence of a required collector road for higher‑density projects. Stacy Webb and Liz Parrish echoed traffic‑safety and environmental concerns, warning of increased run‑off, strain on the aquifer and loss of the neighborhood’s rural character.

Commissioners pressed staff and the agent on whether the development would require a collector road (staff explained two‑family developments use a different standard than multifamily), where septic fields and wells would be located and how stormwater would be handled. The applicant’s agent said the project will connect to an accessible county water line and that stormwater mitigation and engineering will be addressed during the site‑plan phase. Several commissioners noted the applicant must return with a detailed site plan if the commission recommended approval.

After questions, a motion to deny the rezoning was made and seconded, and the commission voted to recommend denial to the County Commission. The chair noted the commission will present the recommendation at the Oct. 7 County Commission meeting for final action.