Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Pud topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission narrowly keeps large PUD intact with two-year condition after vote defeats reversion to R‑40

Bulloch County Board of Commissioners · January 7, 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

After debate on traffic, density and infrastructure, the board rejected a motion to return a 135-acre expired PUD to R‑40 zoning and instead voted 3–2 to retain the PUD-1 with a two-year time limit for the developer to commence work.

Bulloch County commissioners voted 3–2 to deny a petition to revert a 135.27-acre parcel from an expired PUD-1 back to R‑40 zoning, electing instead to retain the PUD with a two-year deadline for the developer to commence construction.

Planner James Pope told the board the PUD-1 approval lapsed under section 12.10 of the county zoning ordinance because significant construction had not commenced within two years of the approval. Staff recommended rezoning the property to R‑40 (40,000-square-foot minimum lots). Opposing the staff petition, attorney Steve Rushing — representing R and H Land Holdings LLC and owner Robert K. Bell Jr. — said the developer delayed because the project required city water and sewer rather than a large septic system; Rushing said a will-serve letter from the City of Statesboro confirming capacity had recently been obtained and asked the board to either leave the PUD or grant a two-year extension.

Commission debate focused on density, traffic and precedent. The original PUD plan allowed a maximum of 500 units (county staff cited a buildable-area calculation of up to 684 units at 7.2 units per acre); some commissioners cited concerns about increased traffic on Burkhalter Road and potential pressure on schools. An initial motion to approve reverting to R‑40 failed 2–3. A subsequent motion to deny the reversion and retain the PUD-1 with a two-year limit carried 3–2.

The retained PUD remains subject to existing PUD conditions; the board noted that the developer must either commence the PUD project within the two-year period or return to the commission for further review.