Planning commission approves variance but recommends denial of conditional use for proposed Pulaski Road personal care home

Bulloch County Planning Commission members voted to approve a variance that would exempt a proposed family personal care home at 7433 Pulaski Road from the zoning requirement that such facilities sit on at least 5 acres, but they later voted unanimously to recommend that the county commissioners deny the related conditional-use permit.

The commission’s staff presentation described the parcel as about 3 acres and showed the site plan and aerial photos. Staff recommended approval of the variance allowing a family personal care home (limited to up to four residents under the county supplemental standards) but reminded the commission the variance would be contingent on the county commissioners granting the conditional use.

Neighbors who live near the property told the commission they oppose the conditional use. Marsha McMillan said she and two relatives own land that borders the parcel and that residents circulated a petition signed by about 126 people; she asked whether the home might house people with criminal or serious mental-health histories and said volunteer emergency response at the location could be “a minimum of 10 minutes.” Evelyn Wilson, whose house is about 200 feet from the site, questioned whether bedrooms meet Georgia’s 80-square-foot-per-resident standard and asked whether county staff would receive state licensing documents.

Applicants and their representatives said the facility would house a maximum of four adults 21 and older, would be staffed 24 hours, and would accept only ambulatory, mentally-stable residents referred by case managers. “We will have a maximum of 4 individuals in the home,” a representative said. They also said they had installed a fire alarm system, had renovated bathrooms for accessibility, would add fencing and cameras if required, and were pursuing state licensing and the fire-department review required for sprinklers.

Commission members asked whether a sprinkler system would be required; staff and the fire representative said a sprinkler system is triggered by rules for four or more unrelated residents and that the county’s building and fire officials would clarify final requirements. Staff also noted a supplemental standard (Section 14-21(d)) that requires the managing caregiver to be the owner and a full-time resident of the facility.

On the variance, a motion to deny failed and the commission approved the variance by majority, with two members recorded as opposed. The commission then considered the separate conditional-use application and, after hearing neighbors’ concerns and staff clarifications, voted unanimously to recommend denial to the county commissioners. The commission set the county hearing for December 2 and reminded the applicants that if the county denies the conditional use, the approved variance would become moot.

The county commissioners will make the final decision at the December hearing on whether the conditional use should be granted, and any conditions imposed there (for example, a sprinkler requirement, fenced outdoor space and ADA access from the home to the recreation area) would have to be met if the permit is approved.