Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial for Bishop auditorium rezoning after split vote
Summary
The Oconee County Planning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend denial of a rezoning request (P250198C) to allow a 4,500 sq ft assembly hall in Bishop, after debate over drainage, traffic and whether stormwater may be shared across parcels.
The Oconee County Planning Commission voted 4–3 on Nov. 17 to recommend denial of rezone application P250198C, a request by Undberg LLC to change Parcel A07034A from A1 to B2 to allow a 4,500-square-foot assembly hall.
Planning staff told commissioners the proposal did not comply with the joint comprehensive plan for the Town of Bishop and recommended denial, while listing nine conditions that would apply if the commission chose to approve the rezoning, including a traffic-impact study, road improvements and strict façade and lighting standards. Justin Greer of Pittman and Greer Engineering, representing the owner, said the site sits at a commercial node by Highway 441 and compared the proposed venue to existing local assembly spaces. Greer argued the expected vehicle trips were low, the facility would be used primarily indoors, and that shared stormwater infrastructure should be treated as a utility rather than a separate land use.
Resident Brian Smith, who said his property backs onto Cemetery Road near Bishop Cemetery, spoke in favor but said he wanted “adequate buffer” and was concerned about traffic on GA‑441. Commissioners questioned whether the auditorium was tied to the nearby church (Greer said it was a separate entity) and pressed the applicant on drainage and how a shared pond and drainage easement would be implemented. Greer called condition 8 — which would prohibit a stormwater pond across property lines — the most problematic for the project and asked the commission to remove it.
Commissioner Matt made a motion to approve the rezoning with conditions 1–7 and 9 (striking condition 8); Colby seconded. That motion failed on a 3–4 vote. A subsequent motion to recommend denial carried 4–3, and the commission will forward that recommendation to the Board/City Council for final action.
The commission also considered a concurrent variance related to the parcel’s buffers; that separate vote resulted in an approval with modified conditions and will also be forwarded to the Board. The planning commission’s recommendation is advisory — the Board/City Council will make the final decision.
