Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners weigh density and setback variances for two local projects

Fannin County Board of Commissioners · January 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board considered a density variance from Hawthorne Ventures to increase units per acre for a 48-unit project near the college and a 5-foot setback variance for Gary Knight; both items passed motions to proceed though final recorded votes are not explicit in the transcript.

The Fannin County Board of Commissioners reviewed two separate land-use variance requests during its meeting.

A developer representing Hawthorne Ventures LLC asked to increase allowable density to 15.3 units per acre — up from the county’s typical baseline of eight units per acre and higher than past approvals that reached 12 units per acre — to allow 48 units on a 3.14-acre parcel. Staff said the planning commission had reviewed the project and that public-safety and EMS representatives had examined the proposal. The developer said the design places living units above ground-floor commercial space intended to serve the nearby college and the Blue Ridge community rather than be restricted solely to students. Commissioners questioned access and timing; the representative said work was already in early design and could be ready for permitting in several months.

A second item involved a setback variance for Gary Knight seeking a 5-foot setback from a 20-foot ingress/egress easement. Discussion noted the road would be widened, a retaining wall would be built on the right-of-way and the structure would be built below that wall. A motion to approve the setback was recorded and seconded.

The transcript records motions and seconds for both requests (motions recorded around seg 213–216 and seg 258–261) and commissioners indicated support during discussion, but a formal roll-call vote was not recorded in the provided segments. Both items were reviewed after they had passed through the planning commission, per staff comments.