Planning board tables decision on 21‑acre Baca Ready Mix project after residents raise air, traffic and safety concerns

The Effingham County Planning Board on Nov. 12 voted to table a request to rezone roughly 21.73 acres at 2388 U.S. Highway 80 from AR1 to a split zoning of B3 (front commercial) and HI (heavy industrial) to accommodate a ready‑mix concrete plant and retail office.

Chelsea, planning staff, said the parcel falls within a transitional area on the future land‑use map and that standard conditions for rezoning include an approved site plan, a signed plat and any required GDOT encroachment permits. Agent Neil McKenzie, representing owner Baca, described a two‑part project: retail/office frontage along Highway 80 and a ready‑mix operation behind it. McKenzie said the company would recombine two parcels, provide perimeter buffering and an internal berm and plantings, and follow state permitting for air and water quality. He summarized traffic expectations based on current operations: about 80 truck trips per day attributable to batching plus an estimated 50 office trips per day; he also described proposed weekday hours and limited Saturday work.

Residents and nearby property owners raised repeated concerns about noise, traffic safety and airborne silica. Dennis Hales and Kathy Sheffield cited prior complaints at other county concrete operations and warned of dust and health risks. "Silica is very, very dangerous," Hales said, and neighbors urged the board to require enforceable protections.

Applicants and their representatives offered mitigation commitments, including a dust‑collection system attached to the plant, paved internal areas, water sprays and a state‑approved stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). McKenzie described an offered berm and retaining‑wall combination that, with plantings, could create 15–16 feet of screening.

Chair and staff emphasized that many elements (air‑quality permits, GDOT entrance approvals, land‑disturbance permits and any Corps of Engineers approvals for wetlands) are state or federal responsibilities and follow separate permitting processes. Given the volume of public comment and a list of commitments offered without written, binding conditions, the board moved to table the item and asked the applicant to return with a written list of specific, enforceable conditions (dust‑collector specification, hours of operation, access configuration, berm dimensions and a final site plan). The motion to table passed; the item is scheduled to return to the Planning Board on Dec. 9 for further consideration prior to the Board of Commissioners hearing.